TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:

fickman wrote:We are not counting on armed teachers as our school defense program.

<snip>

But if the shooter happened to force his way into a classroom where a teacher has decided that their life (and the lives of the children for whom they are responsible) are worth defending, then the attacker will meet resistance.

In all likelihood, if the shooter had already been active elsewhere in the building, the teacher would be in a defensive position, behind a closed / locked / barricaded door, between the students and the shooter, and give it all they can should the attacker gain entrance to the room.

I beg to differ. I AM counting on teachers as our school defense program. I want them to defend my child while he is in school and I do hold them responsible for this defense. In this case, by teachers, I am truly referring to all school personnel in general. We sometimes mistakenly think teachers are the only people in the school. This is one reason I am so strong in my position that teachers should be allowed to be armed.

I put my money (what little I have) in a bank with armed guards to protect it. I put valuable documents in a bank safety deposit box for the same reason. I value my children more than any amount of money or documents. Why would I not want them to be guarded by armed guards who feel responsible for their defense?

Your argument about how to defend the children, such as search out the shooter or blockade the door to their room are merely questions of tactics. I agree that a teacher in a room full of children should probably blockade the door and take a strong defensive position while trying to maneuver the children into a safer spot (much like the one teacher did at Newtown, hiding the children in the closet). But we are missing the fact that no teacher is with the children the whole time they are in school. A certain number are always on a break, in the office, preparing for class, lunch, etc. I would expect them to respond in some way also.

One of the reasons I have always recommended CHLs is that it takes too long for the police to respond. The quickest response in a school will be by the school personnel. It could be a teacher who is not with the class at the minute, an administrator, a police officer assigned to the campus, or a volunteer parent allowed to carry. In any case, I do think the school system is responsible for the safety of the children in their care and we MUST make sure the administration is aware of this responsibility.

fickman wrote:

dac1842 wrote: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 idea is NOT to equip teachers as an organized armed response!!!

Respectfully, you're missing the argument. I also encourage CHL advocates to stop with the "a CHL could stop a mass murder". Maybe they could. Maybe they wouldn't. We are not counting on armed teachers as our school defense program.

The POINT is that - at the very minute a firearm turns in the direction of one individual teacher, that person should have the dignity to exercise a right to defend themselves if they so choose. If a mass murder is happening and the offender never engages the teachers that chose to arm themselves, he would likely continue unopposed until the police arrive (and finally get around to deciding to enter the building).

But if the shooter happened to force his way into a classroom where a teacher has decided that their life (and the lives of the children for whom they are responsible) are worth defending, then the attacker will meet resistance.

In all likelihood, if the shooter had already been active elsewhere in the building, the teacher would be in a defensive position, behind a closed / locked / barricaded door, between the students and the shooter, and give it all they can should the attacker gain entrance to the room.

Yeah, 10 hours is more than sufficient for that. Four hours is more than sufficient for that. Many will voluntarily choose to get additional tactical training. Good for them if they do.

If you value the sanctity of life and the dignity of self defense, you have to see that allowing CHLers - teachers, administrators, and parents included - to carry in school is the right thing to do. It's a moral imperative. The only additional restriction I could back is to enforce on-body carrying in schools. That's it. Otherwise, allow unfettered access for CHLers to all school grounds, whether they are employees or not.

TexasCajun wrote:I'd like to see a licensing provision that allows for reduced restrictions on where a CHL holder could carry based on increased training. For instance, get a basic CHL with the current 10hr course or get an enhanced CHL with the current 10hr course plus additional traing such as the NRA Personal Protection series. Several of the bigger indoor ranges around Houston already offer advanced training for just a little more than the CHL course. It probably wouldn't take much to tweak those into an enhanced licensing requirement.

But regardless of how it's done, the arming of school personel is still a last-ditch-effort at reducing the intended effect of the next psychotic murderer out there. And it should only be done on a voluntary basis as an addition to the professional & armed staff that need to be in place first along with making the schools harder targets.

sfemti33 wrote:

jmra wrote:

Purplehood wrote:And our conversation was going along so cordially thus far...

You are correct. I will edit my last post.

Why? I, for one, agree.

Purplehood wrote:And our conversation was going along so cordially thus far...

dac1842 wrote: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.

dac1842 wrote: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. This is exactly the same stance an armed teacher would take. Why is that OK in Church but not OK in a school? 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. If this is all true then why do you feel a need to carry in Church? Doesn't your carry complicate things? 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 That's all any of us want to do is defend ourselves. But for some reason you are opposed to that just because of my location., 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. By the time you get there more than likely what's done is done. But you do a great job with the paperwork and the body bags. 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 So, what you are really saying is you think CC should not only be banned in schools but also in churches, malls, amusement parks, any place where there are hundreds of people - would that include crowded streets? , except for strictly defending yourself or those in a your immediate area Bingo! You finally get it! This is exactly what teachers want to do!, to respond to that event. I am not saying you should not defend yourself Actually, yes you are. You are against allowing me the opportunity to do exactly that exactly when and where it is most critical., I am against having people start looking for shooter, that creates more problems than it does solutions. Please point to any post anywhere on this forum where it has even been remotely suggested that an armed teacher would go looking for a shooter. I will concede one point, in the Sandy school shooting 3 people did go looking for the shooter. And as is your desire, they were all unarmed. Did I mention that they are all dead?

Purplehood wrote:So a Teacher that has a CHL is somehow less safe with a weapon than a street-bum with a CHL? The occupation makes the difference?

I imagine that the vast majority of CHL-holders in the US are just as 'unqualified' to carry a gun and use it in a tactical situation as anyone else. All the arguments against educators carrying are simply arguments against any CHL carrying.

Divided Attention wrote:Hubby and I have discussed the same issue as I work in a school. I am not a teacher but "the nurse", so I am in a bit of a different situation than most school employees. I may be dealing 1:1 with students, with an entire class, or grade level, with a staff group, and occasionally a parent group. I am often faced on 1:1 dealings with parents as well. Some of these are not comfortable as I am not always able to comply with their requests, and they are not always fond of how I handled a situation with their child. I think through and visualize different scenarios in my school situation. Honestly, there are staff members that I would be very afraid of if they carried at school - or anywhere for that matter.

One thing we discussed, and I have briefly discussed in passing at lunch with my principal, is that the staff should have to carry ON BODY! No purse or desk! Someone suggested "strategically located gun safes" to which I said the goblins would know what areas to "defend" and if they weren't secured or someone "shared" the combination, adding unlocking in a stressful situation... not the best choice. Same as "only the principal carries" - they would know who to take out first, and the principal isn't always on campus. AND there are principals/administrators I wouldn't want to be around if they were carrying.

The other thing we have discussed is requiring Continuing education for those carrying in schools. I know TOO many people who the only practice they do is qualifying and then a range trip or two a year to a static target. They never even practice in their heads about how to handle situations. We can't require this of everyone, but I would sure feel better if folks in buildings full of kids with thin walls had a little advanced training at the very least.

I like the idea Israel has of former military trained parents and grandparents working in the schools - their teachers are armed as well, BUT they have been trained. I love my staff, but many get upset at the thought of not opening the door for any reason during lockdown drills, even if a child is begging at the door. They thought me cold (I had the dubious honor of explaining the lockdown procedure) when I stated that should the goblin be there forcing the child to knock the whole class and teacher would be at greater risk should they open the door. They have never allowed themselves to think about the evil that walks amongst us and call those of us that do "paranoid". Notice I said "many" not all. JMPHO.