TexasCHLforum.com

Well let's throw another wrench into this. Under current Texas law, if a group is charged with the protection of others then the DPS requires a security license. This same law makes a "team" of Chl holders providing protection at a church illegal.
Interesting enough law makes it illegal for a Chl holder who is a licensed private investigator to carry a firearm while acting as a private investigator..
Our own state makes it harder to defend ourselves depending on how we are titled at the moment.

The arguments could be construed as against CHL, or against teachers, neither is true. I am all for CHL, geez I am one! Now for the big question, which all of this discussion was geared to get to.Yes this was deliberate.
How much training are we going to provide to a teacher or teachers to provide this protection. IMHO, 10 hours is no where near enough. Are armed teachers, custodians, or volunteers better than nothing at all? Absolutely, but it comes down to training!
Does a rookie police officer have all the tools to make the decision to take a life? How will he react? Yes, he has the tools. We don't know how he will react, but he has been given the training to know how to react. Studies show you will react the way you have practiced. Have you practiced?
Unless each of you have been involved in a shooting situation you do not know how you will react. If your CHL class constitutes your training, then we hope you have some internal fortitude to do what needs to done.

I am a father and grandfather, I have a vested interest in seeing this played out in the best manner possible to protect my grand children in school, in church or where ever they are.
The point was to generate conversation, the question of arming our teachers is not as easy as saying yes. Do we expect them act like a SWAT unit? Nope, but 10 hours in my mind is not enough. For the record, and I know this will ruffle a few feathers, I don't think 10 hours is enough for CHL either, or a 4 hour refresher.
But again that is just my opinion. The better trained you are, the more effective you are. How much training is enough? I don't have that answer.. Obviously we don't want to go through the 400 hours or more it takes to be a police officer. But 10 just a tad low to me.
At the same time, I think we have to do more than arm a teacher or put an officer in every school. It is time to look at controlled access not only to get in the school, but within the school. How far do we take that?
In the Newtown shootings they had controlled access, the shooter shot the glass out and entered.We are a nation that holds our freedoms and rights near and dear to our hearts. How much of our freedoms are we willing to give up in the name of safety? history tells us not much!

food for thought folks.
Be safe.

Example: We respond to a large family reunion. There are close to 500 people present in all. An argument breaks out and someone pulls out a weapon and threatens to shoot the other guy. A third person pulls out his weapon to shoot the guy holding the gun, shoots 3 people, and completely misses the suspect. The "good guy" shooter, shooting in defense of a third party, is completely sober. But he misses the intended target. Now we have a 'bad guy" whose worst sin is aggravated assault, and a "good guy" going down for negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.

The point is the same, the shooter, thinking he was doing the right thing did not consider everything that must be considered prior to taking that shot. Granted that is not the time to stop and do a risk/benefit analysis.

By the time the our guys show up, we have a full scale riot on our hands, plus a very contaminated and spread out crime scene. I know there is no way to remove all the risk, risk comes with carrying the weapon in the first place. But the point is, you can't afford to get tunnel vision and shoot like that. In a crowd, you may have to change positions to take the high percentage shot. Even that will not guarantee to end well, how many times do we hear of a police officer shooting and missing?

My whole point to the original post is this. There are better options to arming teachers. In absence of those options, armed teachers might be the answer, it just makes me nervous.

gotta love a good debate.
Be Safe.

My fears are not unqualified. I was a LEO for 15 years, 3 of those spent on SWAT. I have seen firsthand what happens when the untrained try to react to things they are not qualified to respond to. It aint pretty. Just because we have the right, does not make it right.
Thanks to everyone, this forum shows we can disagree without calling each other names, being insulting and condescending. Gee, perhaps instead of our Congress meeting in person we should have them do their business through a forum with our rules for conduct...

Be safe.

Good morning. I knew when I wrote this that there would be disagreement. I still stand by my position. In my opinion the correct response to the increase in school shootings is to place a police officer in the schools.
A few people compared this to other scenarios such as church shootings. I am carry in church as well, but again, unless my life or that of someone in my immediate vicinity is in danger I am taking a defensive position and not actively pursuing a suspect. Why? Our church has a safety/security team. They are all off duty police officers, except for the one uniformed officer present. They have a response plan that does not, and will not include CHL. Why not? Simple, the response plan is practiced for several different scenarios and responses. None of the CHL holders have been involved in that response. Having folks not familiar with the plans complicates matters. The exact same reason why if there is shooting in a mall, once the police get on scene they really don't want CHL holders involved. Our team tells CHL holders to defend yourself, but stay down and out of the way, we don't want someone mistaking you for a gunman, especially once the on duty police start to arrive. The team at our church have ID badges that makes them identifiable.

To clarify one point. A few that responded compared my not wanting teachers to carry to many other professions not carrying. Here is the difference, when it is a one on one situation such as a clerk in a store, taxi driver in a taxi, etc, I have no issue. However, when the environment is anyplace where there are hundreds of bystanders such as a school, church, or mall type setting I do not feel that a CHL holder has the proper training, except for strictly defending yourself or those in a your immediate area, to respond to that event. I am not saying you should not defend yourself, I am against having people start looking for shooter, that creates more problems than it does solutions.

Again folks, just my opinion. Be safe.

I just saw an article about free classes being formed for permitting Utah teachers to carry concealed. The law in Utah already permits concealed carry on school campus. What I am going to say next will certainly ruffle a few feathers on this forum, but that is ok.
I am all for concealed carry. I carry daily. I am NOT for teachers carrying in the classroom. Here is why.
1- Teachers are trained to teach. They are not trained to make a tactical engagement of an armed person on the campus. There is more to engaging a threat in a crowded school than just announcing you have a gun, or pointing and shooting.

2- Student on Teacher assaults are at an all time high. While many will argue this is a justification, I fear students overpowering a teacher and now they are armed. Not a good thing.

3- I see a teacher over reacting to a fight or other disturbance and discharging a firearm. I know these instances might be rare, but one is one too many.

I realize many on this board will disagree with me on this, but that is your right.