Utah Teachers Concealed Carry

[JALLEN]

My guess is that you could eliminate virtually all school shootings by merely eliminating gun free zones, and making CHLs "shall issue" and nationwide. I can drive anywhere in the US on my driver's license, no problem, and always have been able to do so since the day I passed the driving test a long, long time ago.

Anybody ever heard of one of these goons going nuts and attacking a gun shop?

[Skiprr]

Anybody ever heard of one of these goons going nuts and attacking a gun shop?

Or a gun range or a police station.

[chasfm11]

DA,

You make some very valid points.

1. I agree with you that some school staff should not carry. But among those who you feel fall into that category, how many of them, on their own, would even think about getting a CHL? I'm a former teacher and remember thinking that some of my fellow staff members were a half of a bubble out of plumb. But almost all of those would have fainted at the sight of a gun and would have had a coronary before every putting such an "evil instrument" on their body. That's why I think school staff carry should be voluntary.

2. I fully agree that it should be "on body" only. The little darlings are very creative at finding things and the school day is too dynamic to assume that you are going to be close enough to a stored gun to be able to get to it in an true emergency. Even the elementary schools switch classes and teachers are teaching in different parts of the building than their home rooms.

3. I'd also agree with you on the need for additional training. If nothing else, all those in a school who would be carrying should be talking to one another. If I were a grandparent volunteer, I wouldn't want to just walk into the school without a better idea of what normal procedures are. I'd be happy to pay for my own additional training for the chance to help make sure that my granddaughter's day at school remained safe.

At the end of the day, however, passengers on airliners, without training or advanced coordination, have gotten together and taken out terrorists. I have a lot of confidence in people who suddenly recognize that their own lives are on the line if they don't do something, doing the right thing - if they have the means to do it.

[jmra]

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.

Every adult in a school building in Israel is military trained. They all are required to serve 2 years in the military.

[jmra]

If I was on the fence about guns and applied the logic I've seen from a couple of people in this thread (flawed as it is), I'd say they have made a great case for banning private ownership of firearms altogether.

Now explain to me why it is perfectly safe for me to carry in a church (just as many kids at my church as there are where I teach), perfectly safe for me to carry at a park, perfectly safe for me to carry at the zoo, perfectly safe for me to carry at Six Flags, but if I enter my school I and my concealed firearm somehow become a danger?

Now to the OP:

"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."
I found this almost funny. Tell me how many CHLs are "trained to make a tactical engagement of an armed person"? It has been stated repeatedly that a teacher would only use their weapon as a means of last defense. That means that an armed intruder is about to murder the students huddled in the corner of my room and you don't think I should have the same right to defend them and myself as any other CHL would outside of a school building? I suppose you would prefer I throw text books at him?

"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."
I would love to see your supporting data for your teacher assaults claim. Teacher assaults are so rare that not only have I never been physically assaulted, I don't know a teacher who has been. But let's assume that you are right, I have yet to meet an elementary teacher who couldn't hold their own against a student. But you meant HS, right? I still say you are wrong but even if you are right your argument doesn't apply to more than half the teachers in the state of Texas.

"3- I see a teacher over reacting to a fight or other disturbance and discharging a firearm."
This is by far the most ridiculous and offensive thing you stated in your entire post. Any educator carrying a weapon will have gone through the exact training that every other CHL holder has gone through. If you believe that a CHL holder can not maintain composure and good judgement in this situation, then you don't really believe in the CHL concept at all.

"I know these instances might be rare, but one is one too many."
Exactly the same argument currently being used in an effort to take away our second amendment right.

[HenryV]

I was going to write something similar, but someone beat me to it. I definitely agree with what jmra posted. I'm a teacher, myself. Don't underestimate what teachers are capable of.

[Jumping Frog]

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.

Every human being has a God-given right to defend themselves. That trumps your argument every time.

[Purplehood]

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.

[dac1842]

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.

[Purplehood]

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.

The teacher would be defending themself and by association those students and faculty with them. By no means would I expect them to "engage" the shooter and go tactical on us.

Scenario:
Idiot maniacal law-breaking killer kicks in the classroom door and starts waving/spraying EBR at folks.
Teacher shoots said Idiot and hopefully drops her.
Shooting stops.

[longtooth]

Short & sweet PurpleHood. We have the same answer.

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.

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.

It amazes me that folks who are against teachers carrying arbatrairly decide that when an active shooting starts the 40 or 50+ teachers necessary to staff a school w/ "hundreds of by standing students" will all rush into halls, through gyms & cafeterias & leave their students defenseless & alone in the classroom.
Armed teachers can be trained easily & quickly to secure the room & defend it. They will not "fan out & flush him out boys" so the teacher possey can surround him w/ all guns ablazin as nay sayers seem to always see.

[dac1842]

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.

[chasfm11]

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.

Could you share with us a specific example? I do understand the potential for someone to inadvertently place rounds inaccurately or through a ricochet but those risks seem much smaller than allowing an active shooter access to a gold fish bowl full of kids.

On the other side, Westcliffe, CO has had a program that they call a Posse for over 10 years. They trained deputies first in an active shooter situation and then offered a version of that same training to teachers. I believe that the deterrent effect of having good guys/galls with guns in schools will be far superior to any actual active shooter response. The best gun fight in a school is one that didn't happen.

[dac1842]

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.

[Oldgringo]

Gun Fear can be converted into Gun Awareness at a Societal level and pretty soon we can have a healthy relationship with it. We all had to get over our fear of driving until we were taught the rules.

{copied from another post on another forum}