Utah Teachers Concealed Carry

[chuckybrown]

Been in any of the new schools lately? They're HUGE, and they're multi-level....even multi-building. ONE armed LEO could be three minutes away even at a dead sprint before he/she could arrive to respond.

I'd rather have more teachers ready to instantly stop a BG vs. a BG hitting multiple targets while the LEO makes his/her way to the scene.

My .02 cents.

[chuckybrown]

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.

I'll leave the call as to whether or not to file charges to the DA.

But, using your scenario....what IF said teacher hits one innocent person/teacher/child....but 26 others get to go home that night because the BG is stopped? I'll take those odds all day every day with my kids in school.

Dac1842...thanks for posting your thoughts. Makes us all think.

[chasfm11]

I understand your example but am having a problem with applying it in an active school shooter situation. Somehow, I don't see kids just milling around with someone standing there killing them or where there would be any difficulty in identifying the shooter, unlike in your family gathering description. It would be my hope that a teacher/volunteer caught the active shooter off guard by returning fire. If you believe that accounts of the CHL in the recent Oregon shooting, the active shooter there went off and committed suicide after the CHL pointed his weapon at that shooter without even firing a shot.

As an individual carrying in public, I face the possibility of dealing with a BG around others every day. Being jumped in a Wal-Mart parking lot may not carry the same level of risk as handling a school shooter among kids but some of that same risk remains. Following the logic that bad things can happen in a good shooting would lead to the conclusion that none of us should ever think about trying to defend ourselves in a public place and I don't agree with that.

Edit to fix grammar.

[anygunanywhere]

Dac1842, how many times have innocent bystanders been shot by LEO?

Your argument is really fallatious and too broad. It lumps all teachers into the same category of not being responsible enough to carry a firearm at all. You could apply the same logic to LEO since there are undoubtedly many examples off LEO shooting innocent bystanders.

If citizens (teachers) cannot be trusted with firearms then no one can, not even LEO.

Your argument came right out of the anti's playbook.

Anygunanywhere

[Purplehood]

Dac1842, how many times have innocent bystanders been shot by LEO?

Your argument is really fallatious and too broad. It lumps all teachers into the same category of not being responsible enough to carry a firearm at all. You could apply the same logic to LEO since there are undoubtedly many examples off LEO shooting innocent bystanders.

If citizens (teachers) cannot be trusted with firearms then no one can, not even LEO.

Your argument came right out of the anti's playbook.

Anygunanywhere

I have to agree. It appears that all of the arguments are against the CHL itself. That may not be Dac1842's intent, but it is the obvious conclusion of said arguments.

[sfemti33]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/nyreg ... d=all&_r=0

I just want to mention that I was in public safety for over 10 years in one capacity or another and the line of thinking that only LEOs are competent or have the training to handle certain situations is appalling and one I challenged every time an officer stated "I am the only one professional enough to handle this glock" type attitude. I do not intend to change the anyone's mind, but officers make poor choices too and it is an important fact.

[dac1842]

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.

[chasfm11]

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.

That is pretty much the nut of it. We have already given up freedom (to carry in schools) under the false pretense that it "protects the kids". I believe that if the schools weren't gun free zones they would not be the targets that they have become. So, in fact, it isn't necessary to give up freedoms in order to be safer. The problem with the anti-gun crowd is that they refuse to acknowledge facts. It is a fact that we cannot continue to spend the Federal money at the rate that we are but that fact isn't acknowledged either.

[jmra]

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.

[EKO]

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.

Even the untrained have a right to defend themselves, as well as, it is right for them to defend themselves. You are correct it aint pretty, even if you are trained.

There is no one saying that Teachers should not be trained to use a weapon. Kind of offensive to say that teachers cannot be trained to handle a gun.

[Oldgringo]

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.

I was also starting to wonder what the real objections to armed teachers were. Well said, PH.

A teacher, any teacher, has a lot more influence time with a chalk in their hand than they will with a gun on their hip. Umm, do they still have blackboards in schools?

[Purplehood]

We all try to mitigate the risk involved when we choose to carry.

There is danger to ourselves, our relatives and close-friends and anyone else when we elect to carry in order to defend ourselves.

It is my suspicion that the simple act of revoking the GFZA in and of itself will give pause to many of the nutcases out there that look at our schools as a happy hunting-ground. Even if no administrators, faculty or students elect to carry, potential perpetrators will have to take pause as they have no idea who does carry, and who does not.

[Blindref757]

A first year teacher is in no way adequately prepared for what they encounter in the schools. They learn OJT for their first 4-5 years before they are truly difference makers and 10 years before they are masters of their trade. I'm guessing that cops are the same way. A rookie has the training, but lacks the street smarts to know when to hold em and when to fold em. In just about any job, you have a learning curve. How many of you would want to have open heart surgery by a kid who just got out of med school last week? Would your opinion change if he was the only doctor available for whatever reason?

The OP said that his objection to teachers with CHL in the classroom is due to lack of training. As a lifelong learner, I would dedicate myself to getting that training. I think others would too. This is not for everyone...but for those who are truly dedicated to the concept. You see, as a teacher who spends 8 hours a day with my students (4th Grade), I love them in a very similar way that I love my own kids. Without these students, I have no purpose in life. I have been called to this profession by a higher authority. I currently attend multiple continuing ed courses to improve my skills in teaching them. I spend countless hours on the computer at home reading blogs, connecting with other educators across the world, and searching for projects that they will love doing and learn the things I need them to know in the process. I watched the Sandy Hook news coverage for 3 days...with tears streaming down my face for most of that time. I didn't see 18 dead 1st graders in CT, I saw 20 dead 4th graders in Texas. I cannot imagine the grief of losing my students...any students at my school.

I have a CHL and my weapon is locked in a box in my car every day when I enter the building. I shoot IDPA when I can (3-4 times a year). I practice static at the range about 8 times a year (its all I can afford). How much more training do I need to be qualified to engage an active shooter who enters my locked classroom door?

I only support CONCEALED ON BODY carry by teachers. I think that they should be trained beyond the CHL requirements. I'm ok with the constraints that the gun only be deployed in the presence of another gun. I don't think this should be a discussion about 2nd amendment or gun rights, it should be centrally focused on stopping mass killing--not fisticuff encounters. I don't pretend to have all of the answers. I'm plenty open to others ideas. This forum is a great learning tool...I'm very thankful for all of the support and learning that I've received the past couple of years here!

[dac1842]

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.

[Purplehood]

A first year teacher is in no way adequately prepared for what they encounter in the schools. They learn OJT for their first 4-5 years before they are truly difference makers and 10 years before they are masters of their trade. I'm guessing that cops are the same way. A rookie has the training, but lacks the street smarts to know when to hold em and when to fold em. In just about any job, you have a learning curve. How many of you would want to have open heart surgery by a kid who just got out of med school last week? Would your opinion change if he was the only doctor available for whatever reason?

The OP said that his objection to teachers with CHL in the classroom is due to lack of training. As a lifelong learner, I would dedicate myself to getting that training. I think others would too. This is not for everyone...but for those who are truly dedicated to the concept. You see, as a teacher who spends 8 hours a day with my students (4th Grade), I love them in a very similar way that I love my own kids. Without these students, I have no purpose in life. I have been called to this profession by a higher authority. I currently attend multiple continuing ed courses to improve my skills in teaching them. I spend countless hours on the computer at home reading blogs, connecting with other educators across the world, and searching for projects that they will love doing and learn the things I need them to know in the process. I watched the Sandy Hook news coverage for 3 days...with tears streaming down my face for most of that time. I didn't see 18 dead 1st graders in CT, I saw 20 dead 4th graders in Texas. I cannot imagine the grief of losing my students...any students at my school.

I have a CHL and my weapon is locked in a box in my car every day when I enter the building. I shoot IDPA when I can (3-4 times a year). I practice static at the range about 8 times a year (its all I can afford). How much more training do I need to be qualified to engage an active shooter who enters my locked classroom door?

I only support CONCEALED ON BODY carry by teachers. I think that they should be trained beyond the CHL requirements. I'm ok with the constraints that the gun only be deployed in the presence of another gun. I don't think this should be a discussion about 2nd amendment or gun rights, it should be centrally focused on stopping mass killing--not fisticuff encounters. I don't pretend to have all of the answers. I'm plenty open to others ideas. This forum is a great learning tool...I'm very thankful for all of the support and learning that I've received the past couple of years here!

Just throwing ideas out here:

- Pay the teachers that volunteer to carry while teaching a little extra.
- Provide these volunteers with training at the School District expense.
- Enact legislation that limits or eliminates their liability for using a handgun in a situation where someone presents a deadly-threat (not necessarily with a handgun, but any item that poses a danger to others).