Texas School District Will Let Teachers Carry Guns

[Rick09]

Has anyone read about how things turned out in Australia since they basically made guns illegal for citizens? (I don’t remember exactly how the law is worded, but I know its very strict). I remember reading that England even disarmed their “bobbies” (police officers), too. But I think they were forced to let some officers have guns now.

I remember reading that the experiment hasn’t worked out too well. But I don’t know if there’s hard data on both of these. If anyone has anything, that would be great.

I may not be able to check it for a bit, so thanks ahead of time if anyone provides the information.

 

[melensdad]

I remember reading that England even disarmed their “bobbies” (police officers), too. But I think they were forced to let some officers have guns now.

I spent the summer in England with my family and EVERY DAY while I was there the BBC had stories of knife attacks. I don’t know if it is true, but I was told that knife violence is 8 times higher in the UK than in the US. (per capita)

Another thing that I noticed is that it appears they have a LOT more police presence there than we have here. While we were in cities, even fairly small ones, we noticed police on the streets everywhere we turned. There were also cameras monitoring things in many areas, with London having a very extensive camera brigade that monitors much of the downtown areas, club areas, etc. I personally don’t think we US citizens would put up with that “Orwellian” level of police presence.

Still, all that aside, the US Supreme Court ruled that citizens have the right to own handguns. With that ruling this year, there is no way to really compare the strict gun laws of England/Australia with those we have here in the US because the SCOTUS has now spoken and it appears gun bans in the US are illegal.

 

[Wolseley]

How would professional security people prevent a Columbine from occurring? As students they couldn’t be banned and walking into the school already having shot some students, I doubt a security guard would stop them.

I am not talking about security responding after the shooting starts; I am talking about access control, where you search the little darlings before they ever even enter the school—pat downs, x-rays, metal detectors, strip searches if you have to.

Prevent it before it happens, not respond to it after it happens.

In addition to the expense, a professional security person can not respond quickly to an attack on students in a class room on the other side of the school.

Again: I am not talking about security responding after the shooting starts; I am talking about access control, where you search the little darlings before they ever even enter the school—pat downs, x-rays, metal detectors, strip searches if you have to.

Prevent it before it happens, not respond to it after it happens.

Excellent point. Remember the Northern Illinois University shootings. Police and security were at the scene in less than 3 minutes. It was long over by the time they arrived.

I know that it takes about 6 minutes to walk from one side of the high school my wife teaches in to the other side. If the security guard is in the middle of the building and walking a beat, he’s and average of 3 minutes from any given point, shorter if he is running to scene, but what if he is at one end and needs to be at the other end? Even running it will take him a couple minutes. Historically many of these school shootings are over in 60 to 90 seconds, not minutes.

The only ’first responder’ that can arrive on scene during one of these events is one who is ALREADY THERE when it starts.

Remember the mall shooting where a police officer engaged the shooter? That police officer was off duty, shopping with his wife. He was carrying a concealed weapon and was on the scene. The press reports made it sound like the SWAT team arrived in time to resolve the situation but that is far from the actual events.

Again: I am not talking about security responding after the shooting starts; I am talking about access control, where you search the little darlings before they ever even enter the school—pat downs, x-rays, metal detectors, strip searches if you have to.

Prevent it before it happens, not respond to it after it happens.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I am not talking about security responding after the shooting starts; I am talking about access control, where you search the little darlings before they ever even enter the school—pat downs, x-rays, metal detectors, strip searches if you have to.

“As efficient as airline security” as the old saying goes… right?

 

[pnewton]

If you think people are up in arms over CCL holders who teach carrying their guns, try hitting them with metal detectors, pat downs and strip searches for their little precious teenagers.

 

[melensdad]

I am not talking about security responding after the shooting starts; I am talking about access control, where you search the little darlings before they ever even enter the school—pat downs, x-rays, metal detectors, strip searches if you have to.

Prevent it before it happens, not respond to it after it happens.

I’m really sorry but apparently you are not aware of the budget realities of rural school districts? Remember we are not talking about a single high school, we are talking about all the schools in this particular district, from elementary on up. They already have access control, student ID systems, but that didn’t help the Amish school when a trusted, authorized person committed the murders!

I suggest you look up some of the interviews with the superintendent of this district. He gave very well reasoned replies and justification for allowing this action. Your response to this thread is not within the fiscal reality of what this school district is facing.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Another school shooting this morning. Statistics are great as long as you or yours aren’t the 1 in XX,000.

A couple of people were hit by lighting last week. Better not leave your house.

Oh, I know, the odds aren’t that likely, but what if you or yours are the unlucky ones?

Las Vegas loves people like you.

 

[pnewton]

A couple of people were hit by lighting last week. Better not leave your house.

Oh, I know, the odds aren’t that likely, but what if you or yours are the unlucky ones?

Another irrelevant comparison? The fact is we do make preparation for lightning strikes; rods on buildings, clearing golf courses, swimming pools, etc. Las Vegas can’t stand people like me. I do not believe in taking chances.

 

[Sir_Knight]

A couple of people were hit by lighting last week. Better not leave your house.

Oh, I know, the odds aren’t that likely, but what if you or yours are the unlucky ones?

Las Vegas loves people like you.

Just because it is unlikely to be hit by lightning, doesn’t mean that a teacher should allow her students to go outdoors during a thunderstorm waving metal rods over their heads.

The Catholic Church Catechism clearly states that those who are responsible for the well being of others have a GRAVE duty to protect them. A “grave” duty must be addressed by the BEST means possible, otherwise it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty. The BEST means of self defense in MOST cases is with a firearm.

Failure to perform a duty is a sin. If it involves grave matter, as the CCC says is the case, then it could be a mortal sin.

Just because something is unlikely to happen, does not mean that we are freed of our duty to address it.

 

[Linda_Marie]

I spent the summer in England with my family and EVERY DAY while I was there the BBC had stories of knife attacks. I don’t know if it is true, but I was told that knife violence is 8 times higher in the UK than in the US. (per capita)

Another thing that I noticed is that it appears they have a LOT more police presence there than we have here. While we were in cities, even fairly small ones, we noticed police on the streets everywhere we turned. There were also cameras monitoring things in many areas, with London having a very extensive camera brigade that monitors much of the downtown areas, club areas, etc. I personally don’t think we US citizens would put up with that “Orwellian” level of police presence.

Still, all that aside, the US Supreme Court ruled that citizens have the right to own handguns. With that ruling this year, there is no way to really compare the strict gun laws of England/Australia with those we have here in the US because the SCOTUS has now spoken and it appears gun bans in the US are illegal.

I understand that the police in the UK have to wear a different kind of vest because the normal bullet-proof one allows knives to pass through them.

All that has happened here in Oz is that now, only criminals have guns and they are using them more and more in holdups and robberies. The gun which the shooter used in Tasmania triggering this ban was already illegal, yet he managed to get it anyway. People who own guns legally have to keep them under lock and key and the ammunition locked up somewhere else. Of course, all those who own guns legally have had to pass rigorous tests to prove they have a need for their weapon and have the training to use it properly. They are already law-abiding people. Not so the criminals. Any gun may be obtained illegally from the bikie gangs.

Would-be robber shot dead by cash guards
news.com.au/story/0,23599,24211118-421,00.html

The initial stories stated there was a possibility that the security guard who shot him might be charged with murder.
Dead robbery suspect was ‘a good man’
news.com.au/story/0,23599,24210826-421,00.html?from=communities

Sheik attends funeral of shot robber
news.com.au/story/0,23599,24218376-29277,00.html

I think having trained armed teachers is a good idea. As others have said, the training required to get a CCW permit is pretty thorough. They aren’t just handing them out to random untrained teachers who will react with fear and shoot anyone who moves in a threatening situation.
txconcealedcarry.com/

 

[Wolseley]

I’m really sorry but apparently you are not aware of the budget realities of rural school districts? Remember we are not talking about a single high school, we are talking about all the schools in this particular district, from elementary on up. They already have access control, student ID systems, but that didn’t help the Amish school when a trusted, authorized person committed the murders!

I suggest you look up some of the interviews with the superintendent of this district. He gave very well reasoned replies and justification for allowing this action. Your response to this thread is not within the fiscal reality of what this school district is facing.

My response is similar to the one a local parish priest gave the congregation here when the parish didn’t have enough money to fund the parish school. The people were up in arms that he and the bishop were going to close the school. They, in turn, presented the financial statements which showed that they simply did not have enough money to operate the school any longer. Someone accused the priest of “not caring” whether the children of the parish had access to a good Catholic eductaion. The priest said, “If the people of the parish want a school, then they’ll find a way to fund it. If they can’t, or won’t, then the school closes. My job is to provide a good Catholic eductation if the cash is available. It is not my job to find a way to fund the thing.”

I’m sorry, but this is what it comes down to: if the school is that strapped, then they can have band, intervarsity sports, debate club, Sadie Hawkins dances, homecoming parties, and all the other assorted paraphernalia associated with modern American schools which also happen to have absolutely nothing to do with education—and dead students lying in the hallways; or they can have security and live students learning the Three R’s and foregoing their chance for “socialization”.

This is how the feudal system got started, folks. They lived in a dangerous time, too. Nobody wanted to be beholden to the local lord, but they had their choice: they could try to do things on their own, and get their heads lopped off by marauding bands of Magyar horsemen, or they could do what they didn’t want to do, and cough up levy for the local baron, who would use his private army to protect them.

It all boils down to how safe you want your kids to be. Do you pay for security, or do you pay for basketball games and bus gas for cross-town integration, and other such schemes?

 

[geezerbob]

I see nothing wrong with the option selected by this school board. Given the choices of doing without security, raising taxes to hire it out, or utilizing what they already had, they appear to have made a prudent decision, which is in no way diminished by the fact that some people refuse to recognize the option they chose as a viable one.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This is how the feudal system got started, folks. They lived in a dangerous time, too.

What do you think the homicide rate is today, as opposed to 30 years ago?

How about a hundred years ago?

How about 500 years ago?

How safe does it have to get before it isn’t “dangerous times” anymore?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Just because it is unlikely to be hit by lightning, doesn’t mean that a teacher should allow her students to go outdoors during a thunderstorm waving metal rods over their heads.

If you think one needs to do that to be hit by lighting, you are kidding yourself. In fact, people are lightning can strike in clear weather. It is air movement, not clouds, that generates lighting. And it’s more common than being shot at school. You’ve simply failed to understand the relative levels of risk.

The Catholic Church Catechism clearly states that those who are responsible for the well being of others have a GRAVE duty to protect them. A “grave” duty must be addressed by the BEST means possible, otherwise it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty. The BEST means of self defense in MOST cases is with a firearm.

Often, unless the person is a professional law officer, the accidental discharge of a firearm is a bigger risk than the tiny risk for which it was meant to control.

Failure to perform a duty is a sin. If it involves grave matter, as the CCC says is the case, then it could be a mortal sin.

So bringing a gun to school might thereby be a mortal sin, unless it was justified by the level of risk.

Just because something is unlikely to happen, does not mean that we are freed of our duty to address it.

If we follow the Church’s teaching, we would have to properly assess the level of risk and act accordingly. Arming teachers would violate our duty to protect children, unless they were properly trained as peace officers.

 

[melensdad]

If we follow the Church’s teaching, we would have to properly assess the level of risk and act accordingly. Arming teachers would violate our duty to protect children, unless they were properly trained as peace officers.

Please show me your basis for these statements in the Catechism.

How does ‘arming teachers’ violate our duty to protect children? Also, please realize that the school is not ‘arming’ anyone, it is simply authorizing those who choose to bear the duty to protect to arm themselves, and then only after they meet a specific list of qualifications that is above and beyond the normal standards applied to CCW holders.

Also, you state that it violates our duty to protect children ‘unless they were properly trained as peace officers’ and I don’t see that in our Catechism either. In fact I don’t see the intent of the school district to have the faculty act as ‘peace officers’ so if it is not their intent then why should they be trained as such?

As for your comment about accessing risk, that again is something I’ve missed in the teachings of the church. But I don’t see the risk that you see. You keep throwing out your statistics about accidental shootings but you never break them down to remove the types of gun handling that would not occur in these schools.

So you made some bold proclamations about our church, please back those statements up because it strikes me that the copy of the Catechism I have on my nightstand shows that it is a grave duty to defend the lives of the innocent.

Further, I’ve not seen you address any of these questions:

1. 
   *]As a gun owner with a wife who is a teacher, why should she be doomed to die if someone with a gun walks into her room with intent to kill?
   *]Does not our Catechism say that people with responsibility to protect those in their care have the grave duty to defend their lives?
   *]Why would you require my wife to deny a grave duty as defined by our Church and die like a whimpering victim?
   

   I’m sorry, but this is what it comes down to: if the school is that strapped, then they can have band, intervarsity sports, debate club, Sadie Hawkins dances, homecoming parties, and all the other assorted paraphernalia associated with modern American schools which also happen to have absolutely nothing to do with education—and dead students lying in the hallways; or they can have security and live students learning the Three R’s and foregoing their chance for “socialization”.

   Or, they can have both SAFETY and EXTRA-CURRICULARS by allowing selected members of highly trained volunteer faculty to carry guns during the course of their normal duties.
   
   I don’t understand why this is an issue in this Texas town when it is NOT an issue in many other towns in other states that already allow it, and, by the way, have had no accidental shootings and no other problems!?!

 

[pnewton]

Arming teachers would violate our duty to protect children, unless they were properly trained as peace officers.

Again, they are trained as peace officers. Not completely, of course, as knowledge of traffic laws, penal code, pursuit driving, etc. are not needed. They are trained out of the same agency and curriculum as peace officers, but only in the limited area that applies to self-defense and defense of another. They also undergo the same background checks and restrictions.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Again, they are trained as peace officers. Not completely, of course,

Since the “hazard” you propose to control is likely to occur at any given school about once every 12,000 years, let’s go for “completely”, just to make sure that the “control” doesn’t kill more kids than the “hazard.”

 

[Brendan]

Since the “hazard” you propose to control is likely to occur at any given school about once every 12,000 years, let’s go for “completely”, just to make sure that the “control” doesn’t kill more kids than the “hazard.”

So why, exactly, would requiring knowledge of traffic laws or how to fill out booking forms from these teachers make them better prepared to defend their students?

 

[The_Barbarian]

So why, exactly, would requiring knowledge of traffic laws or how to fill out booking forms from these teachers make them better prepared to defend their students?

When you can show me that people with a license to carry are as reliable as law enforcement officers, I’ll agree. Anyone who believes that a person going through a gun safety course to carry a handgun is as reliable a judge of when to use that handgun as a law enforcement officer is kidding himself.

That “extra stuff” is a lot more involved than learning how to fill out forms. It’s knowing when to shoot in a situation, and when to hold off shooting. Amateurs, no matter how motivated, aren’t going to be able to exercise the judgment of a police officer.

Given that the odds of anyone coming into that school are almost zero, it’s crazy to do something that increases the likelihood of a child being hurt, in an attempt to control those odds.

 

[The_Barbarian]

How does ‘arming teachers’ violate our duty to protect children?

Increases the likelihood that they will be shot. Gun accidents, even among those who are license to carry a concealed weapon. are more common than school shootings.

Also, you state that it violates our duty to protect children ‘unless they were properly trained as peace officers’ and I don’t see that in our Catechism either.

I don’t see arming teachers in the Catechism, but you trotted that idea out, and used the Catechism to justify it. If we have a grave duty to protect those in our care, it is therefore a grave sin if we increase the danger to them, even if we present it as “protecting” them.

But it’s not really about protecting children, is it? It’s a political campaign.