TexasCHLforum.com

Please indulge me a little background.

I had lunch with a guy that I know today. He is in the process of trying to get a school district to reconsider their rejection of an Argyle-like program. He described his actions and admits that he has a daunting task before him. But he has a number of things working in his favor - including a non-scientific survey of the area with 1,500 showing that 70% of the respondents favor his proposal.

Unfortunately, the district covers several municipalities and it is reported (unconfirmed) that all of the chiefs of police oppose the program. This is quite interesting because the Argyle chief initially opposed the plan, too, but was won over and now oversees that program. But my goal here is not to talk about the Argyle program specifically.

One of the chiefs that my friend will be talking to is quoted as opposing having armed teachers in a school because his officers would not be able to tell, at the distance down a hallway, whether the person was good or bad. Maybe it shouldn't but that comment scares the heck out of me.

There are several large supermarkets in that chief's area and I occasionally go to at least one of those. I have a lot of problem understanding how a situation that might go down in one of those stores tomorrow with a CHL would be different than a school with an armed teacher.

I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that as a hired professional, the chief has to use his best judgement in matters brought before him. But CHL in Texas is settled. Its here and a fact of life. I do understand that it could complicate a public gunfight just like an armed teacher could complicate an active shooter in a school. Life can be complicated and we should be preparing for those complications.

I have to admit that, in the back of my mind, was the situation with man in Ft. Worth at his home and now, today, the report of a teen killed with what was reported as a WII controller. But I'm concerned enough that I may schedule a meeting with the chief and wanted a chance to hash out my thoughts here rather than for the first time in front of the chief.

One last point. My friend today is ex-military and an ex-LEO. He trained extensively with SWAT in North Texas. He talked about the very limited training that he had as an LEO in active shooter situations. I'm wondering if the chief understands that about his officers as well as my friend does and that is the basis for his concern.

I'm listening. What is that I'm missing?

In a school, and armed teacher might feel compelled or emboldened to go in search of the shooter. In a mall, most SOPs for the mall is evacuate/hide. I know I teach CHLers to not go hunting active shooters just because of this concern.

That said, I firmly believe an armed teacher could leave the police with nothing to do but take a report. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Teachers can be taught how to react upon arrival of armed LE.

jbarn wrote:In a school, and armed teacher might feel compelled or emboldened to go in search of the shooter. In a mall, most SOPs for the mall is evacuate/hide. I know I teach CHLers to not go hunting active shooters just because of this concern.

That said, I firmly believe an armed teacher could leave the police with nothing to do but take a report. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Teachers can be taught how to react upon arrival of armed LE.

My thoughts exactly. Police may have to deal with a CHL who hasn't had the kind of extra training that a teacher would have to go through to be allowed to carry in a school. I would think part of that training would be how not to get shot by the police when they arrive.

While I do understand that there may be some police wanna-be's around, I cannot imagine someone with that kind of attitude being selected for a school program. It is much more likely to happen during a shooting in a commercial establishment. Except that I haven't seen an example of that yet. A case could be made for some of the store shootings where the intended victim follows the BG out of the building but if it were me, I won't want the possibility of the BG coming back at me and would want to make sure that the threat didn't quickly redevelop.

My friend shares you sentiment about the police being needed only to take a report. That is a far better outcome than dead kids for a lot of us.

jbarn wrote:In a school, and armed teacher might feel compelled or emboldened to go in search of the shooter. In a mall, most SOPs for the mall is evacuate/hide. I know I teach CHLers to not go hunting active shooters just because of this concern.

That said, I firmly believe an armed teacher could leave the police with nothing to do but take a report. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Teachers can be taught how to react upon arrival of armed LE.

the teacher isn't going to leave her students.....no way, no how. Now, if the shooter comes in her classroom, if she's armed, he's dead, what problem the chief has with that...I don't see it? (ok, grammatically that's horrid, but I think you should understand it. :) )

Agree with SewTexas. Armed teachers would be to defend students, not clear rooms and search for intruder. Hunker down, barricade, wait for the cavalry and be prepared to resist if BG comes into the classroom.

SewTexas wrote:

jbarn wrote:In a school, and armed teacher might feel compelled or emboldened to go in search of the shooter. In a mall, most SOPs for the mall is evacuate/hide. I know I teach CHLers to not go hunting active shooters just because of this concern.

That said, I firmly believe an armed teacher could leave the police with nothing to do but take a report. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Teachers can be taught how to react upon arrival of armed LE.

the teacher isn't going to leave her students.....no way, no how. Now, if the shooter comes in her classroom, if she's armed, he's dead, what problem the chief has with that...I don't see it? (ok, grammatically that's horrid, but I think you should understand it. :) )

Having an armed teacher hiding in a class room is next to useless, they need to be engaging the shooter, unless every teacher is armed and that is not going to happen any time soon.

suthdj wrote: Having an armed teacher hiding in a class room is next to useless, they need to be engaging the shooter, unless every teacher is armed and that is not going to happen any time soon.

Not at all useless IMHO. I have a friend who is an elementary school teacher and who has a CHL. I asked if she would be interested in having a weapon in her classroom if it were allowed, she said "Yes", and described this scenario:

While in class, sounds of screaming and shooting come from a nearby classroom. Her actions would be to herd all of her students into a corner of the classroom while taking a student's tennis shoe and wedging it under the door as a door stop. Next, she would get into another corner with a clear shot at the door. If the intruder comes to her classroom, and she'll know who it is by their attempts to force the door, she shoots through the door.

Odds are her students are safe.

No, it doesn't protect the entire school, and if a shooter comes to her classroom first, she's out of luck. Obviously there are limits to what a single individual can do.

Still, it sounds like a good plan to me. I'd be pleased to have a kid in her classroom.

suthdj wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

jbarn wrote:In a school, and armed teacher might feel compelled or emboldened to go in search of the shooter. In a mall, most SOPs for the mall is evacuate/hide. I know I teach CHLers to not go hunting active shooters just because of this concern.

That said, I firmly believe an armed teacher could leave the police with nothing to do but take a report. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Teachers can be taught how to react upon arrival of armed LE.

the teacher isn't going to leave her students.....no way, no how. Now, if the shooter comes in her classroom, if she's armed, he's dead, what problem the chief has with that...I don't see it? (ok, grammatically that's horrid, but I think you should understand it. :) )

Having an armed teacher hiding in a class room is next to useless, they need to be engaging the shooter, unless every teacher is armed and that is not going to happen any time soon.

it's not "next to useless" for those 25 - 30 students, is it?

suthdj wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

jbarn wrote:In a school, and armed teacher might feel compelled or emboldened to go in search of the shooter. In a mall, most SOPs for the mall is evacuate/hide. I know I teach CHLers to not go hunting active shooters just because of this concern.

That said, I firmly believe an armed teacher could leave the police with nothing to do but take a report. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Teachers can be taught how to react upon arrival of armed LE.

the teacher isn't going to leave her students.....no way, no how. Now, if the shooter comes in her classroom, if she's armed, he's dead, what problem the chief has with that...I don't see it? (ok, grammatically that's horrid, but I think you should understand it. :) )

Having an armed teacher hiding in a class room is next to useless, they need to be engaging the shooter, unless every teacher is armed and that is not going to happen any time soon.

I firmly and respectfully disagree.
An armed teacher should do as other posters have proposed and hunker-down in the class with all of the children out of the line of fire (teacher to door). That teacher should be prepared to engage anyone forcing the door that does not provide a valid reason for trying to enter the classroom after sounds of gunfire are heard.
That teacher should not be attempting to execute search-and-destroy missions for intruders through the hallways of the school.

What I'm hearing is some responses from people who have no clue what happens during a lock down.
I won't go into our procedures, but I will say that almost every plan I've seen has teachers with students locked in their room. Staff without students at that time have other responsibilities. Often this is going to be administrators and support staff.
If I were putting together the plan, I would strongly urge my admin and support staff to receive the proper training and to be armed as they are most likely going to be the first point of contact. Almost all of these individuals already carry radios which also helps in communicating current status.
I'm not opposed to teachers in the room being armed, but I will say that I know teachers with CHLs that would totally fall apart in a situation like this and a gun is the last thing you would want them to have.
I'm not a big fan of the whole shrink work up, but I do believe that employees who wish to be armed should go through some realistic active shooter training to see how they will react in stressful situations.

jmra wrote:What I'm hearing is some responses from people who have no clue what happens during a lock down.
I won't go into our procedures, but I will say that almost every plan I've seen has teachers with students locked in their room. Staff without students at that time have other responsibilities. Often this is going to be administrators and support staff.
If I were putting together the plan, I would strongly urge my admin and support staff to receive the proper training and to be armed as they are most likely going to be the first point of contact. Almost all of these individuals already carry radios which also helps in communicating current status.
I'm not opposed to teachers in the room being armed, but I will say that I know teachers with CHLs that would totally fall apart in a situation like this and a gun is the last thing you would want them to have.
I'm not a big fan of the whole shrink work up, but I do believe that employees who wish to be armed should go through some realistic active shooter training to see how they will react in stressful situations.

I understand your point but would counter that, in a life or death situation, may people seem to find a way to act in ways that the rest of us would not have anticipated. I don't disagree that teachers who are carrying in school would benefit from active shooter training but many LEOs receive a very limited amount of that same training. I'll always side with more training being better. But I'm not sure that it needs to be the minimum price of admission. As I've argued recently with others, there is little difference between being in the candy isle at Wal-Mart before halloween with kids as far as the eye can see, having a CHL and having a BG situation develop and being a school and having that same kind of situation develop. Churches, museums (Perot comes to mind) and other places where kids can and do congregate in number present the same problems as a school.

What I'm looking for in this thread are reasons why my position that the school is not really unique environment is incorrect. Yep, there are lots of kids but there are lots of kids at a church bible school, too.

jmra wrote:. . .I won't go into our procedures, but I will say that almost every plan I've seen has teachers with students locked in their room. Staff without students at that time have other responsibilities. Often this is going to be administrators and support staff.
If I were putting together the plan, I would strongly urge my admin and support staff to receive the proper training and to be armed as they are most likely going to be the first point of contact.

After Sandy Hook, the Buckeye Firearms Foundation started offering training to teachers in Ohio. It is a 28 hour firearms course with standards that exceed those required for law enforcement firearms training in Ohio. Now it is hitting the news that these teachers have been quietly getting approval from local school boards to carry in the schools.

This Columbus Ohio news report on the subject yesterday was followed by a survey that is currently 90% Yes 10% No on the question whether schools are safer with armed teachers.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/201 ... sroom.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have a friend who is armed every day now, and only the principal knows in the school. This is in response to research that shows if a shooter knows who is armed in school, it gives the shooter an advantage. His training included a comprehensive course with trauma care training, situational training, weapon retention, room clearing, etc. It was a very long and difficult program.

Another person I know who is a county prosecutor had this observation:

There is one aspect of training that you did not mention: the insight that comes from being an experienced teacher. The difference between you and a security guard or a gung-ho Rambo wannabee who wants to carry a gun into the school and "protect the kids" is that you will be a lot better at recognizing what is a threat and what is not. Experienced teachers are also good at recognizing when a situation is escalating, not only within the moment, but also over a period of days, weeks or months. As far as I am concerned, that experience counts for a lot.

chasfm11 wrote:

jmra wrote:What I'm hearing is some responses from people who have no clue what happens during a lock down.
I won't go into our procedures, but I will say that almost every plan I've seen has teachers with students locked in their room. Staff without students at that time have other responsibilities. Often this is going to be administrators and support staff.
If I were putting together the plan, I would strongly urge my admin and support staff to receive the proper training and to be armed as they are most likely going to be the first point of contact. Almost all of these individuals already carry radios which also helps in communicating current status.
I'm not opposed to teachers in the room being armed, but I will say that I know teachers with CHLs that would totally fall apart in a situation like this and a gun is the last thing you would want them to have.
I'm not a big fan of the whole shrink work up, but I do believe that employees who wish to be armed should go through some realistic active shooter training to see how they will react in stressful situations.

I understand your point but would counter that, in a life or death situation, may people seem to find a way to act in ways that the rest of us would not have anticipated. I don't disagree that teachers who are carrying in school would benefit from active shooter training but many LEOs receive a very limited amount of that same training. I'll always side with more training being better. But I'm not sure that it needs to be the minimum price of admission. As I've argued recently with others, there is little difference between being in the candy isle at Wal-Mart before halloween with kids as far as the eye can see, having a CHL and having a BG situation develop and being a school and having that same kind of situation develop. Churches, museums (Perot comes to mind) and other places where kids can and do congregate in number present the same problems as a school.

What I'm looking for in this thread are reasons why my position that the school is not really unique environment is incorrect. Yep, there are lots of kids but there are lots of kids at a church bible school, too.

It is different in that the density of people in the space is much greater than virtually any other environment, and the fact that the people are sorted into groups by age.

That being said, schools have much more in common with lots of other environments than they have differences, and the same type of tactics that are appropriate in other crowded environments are appropriate for schools.

Most likely, the armed educator will not be a teacher but rather an administrator or someone who is not tied to one specific classroom. As a school principal and CHL holder, I have mixed feelings. I see pros and cons to the issue. However, until the community changes it's own mindset, it doesn't matter how I feel. Most school board members are merely politicians and seldom have the courage to bring in the kind of change necessary to have an armed educator on campus; and you can most certainly rule out a school marshal program at a large district.

I support teachers being armed. I also strongly support the concept of a plan for what they will do when something does go down. For most cases, when there is a shooting, I suggest that the armed teachers stay with their students in the locked room. I understand that this has a flaw since I also doubt we will see a majority of teachers armed.

And for those who think the teacher will never leave his or her students, I would point out that almost every school of which I am aware has a plan for specific teachers to respond to trouble areas and handle or help handle it. This is true even in schools with police officers on campus. I know that most of these plans are based on students being involved in fist fights, but those teachers are most likely to be the type of person who would run to the sound of guns. I really don't have too much of a problem with this, IF the teachers are given training in how to handle these situations.

That is actually one of the few parts of the school marshal program I did like. The teachers all must get some training in how to handle these situations. A school can allow armed teachers without participating in the program by just writing a policy on staff members who have a CHL carrying on campus.

And for the Chief who is worried about his officers not being able to tell the good guys from the bad guys, I have a few suggestions. The first, and strongest, is to get better officers and give them better training. this was one of the arguments against CHLs way back when. It is simply not valid because officers need to be able to tell the difference in everyday life and cannot just start shooting anyone with a gun anywhere.

And, as a certified TCOLE trainer, I will offer to teach the class. It would probably only be about a five minute class. Using examples, I would simply show that the good guy is the one who is not shooting or is only shooting at one other person who is also armed and who obeys when you tell him to do something. The bad guy is the one shooting at other people indiscriminately and points his weapon at the officer when the officer yells a command.

I would have to acknowledge that the good guy may react wrong when under the stress of a live fire situation, but these are the guidelines I would teach.