Texas School District Will Let Teachers Carry Guns

[KenEOTE]

Why aren’t dangerous and violent kids removed from these schools? That’s it…once you exhibit violence towards another schoolmate, or the teacher–you’re out. Done. The government can find a suitable school for this student, then…teachers shouldn’t have to keep tolerating kids who endanger the classroom. Guns are not the answer.

Usually you don’t find out which kids are dangerous till they have killed 10 of there classmates. People always say after it happens. “They were so quite and seemed nice. They kept to themselves. We are shocked.”

It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[melensdad]

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.

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.

I believe your logic to be faulty and misdirected.

Please show where trained individuals have injured children while carrying their guns on duty. You tend to lump all gun accidents but many do not involve any injury at all. You tend to lump all licensed carry holders and all times but we are only talking about specifically trained individuals during school hours.

This is not politics in any way. I’ve never even brought up politics. I do refer to the catechism and I also refer to the interviews with the school superintendent. None of that is political. You, however seem to make very general broad strokes and avoid specific questions posed.

 

[whatevergirl]

I don’t know the answer, it’s just so heart breaking that we have to come to this in today’s world.

 

[KenEOTE]

I don’t know the answer, it’s just so heart breaking that we have to come to this in today’s world.

The thing is it is only going to get worse. When we care more about a false definition of tolerance and being politically correct, then we care about the truth its a sad world.

 

[pnewton]

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.

I don’t know of any, yet I know of school shootings. Anecdotal, for sure, but as accurate as guessing at statistics that do not exist. Gun accidents for people with a Texas CCL during a time they have their gun on them? I don’t know that meteor may be more common.

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

No one is running for office, at least that was reported. Do you know something we don’t?

 

[Sir_Knight]

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?

• from 1876 until 1885, Dodge City had 15 homicides.
• Dodge City’s worst year for murder was 1878, when 5 people were murdered.
• Washington DC had 169 homicides in 2006.

 

[wabrams]

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.

When a police officer draws their weapon, they are ready to shoot and plan on shooting. They don’t draw it for a deterent or to scare people, they draw that weapon to use it. When they should draw that weapon is the exact same reasons when a person with a concealed weapons permit can draw their weapons. You are the one kidding themselves b/c you apparently have no clue what’s involved in law enforcement or conceal & carry permits.

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.

Statistics and a source, please.

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.

I don’t see in the Catechism where it says we can’t arm teachers.

 

[childofmary1143]

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.

Except that all that good preventive measure won’t help preventing another Columbine. You do realize that Columbine was PLANNED. If your plan was brought in, then students who want to perpetrate such a heinous crime, would be aware of the security and it won’t have any effect.

For effective prevention you need to COMPLETELY shut down criminal gun running enterprises and that is far beyond the domain of Security.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Not true. If a majority of the teachers at Columbine were license to carry a gun, they would have been able to confront the shooters and return fire instead of running like sitting ducks. People would have still died but chances are that the shooters would have been stopped sooner and less lives would have been lost.

Obviously nobody can predict what WOULD happen but I base my above conclusion on what has historically happened in the past when school shooters were confronted by armed civilians …

A similar situation to the one that happened at Columbine occurred on January 16th, 2002 at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia. A disgruntled former student began a similar shooting spree. The difference in this case was that the attack was stopped by three individuals, two of whom were legally armed with handguns. Unfortunately, the attack was not stopped until three people had been killed and three more wounded. Why did it take so long to stop the attack? The good guys had to retrieve their guns from their parked cars before they could confront the gunman because ALS was a gun-free zone.

Think of what would have happened if they had their guns with them initially instead of wasting precious time going to their cars.

 

[melensdad]

Except that all that good preventive measure won’t help preventing another Columbine.

Untrue. Planned or not, shooters tend to pick ‘soft’ targets where they can kill the most number of people possible. This has been shown to be true not only in the US where schools, churches, restaurants/bars and shopping malls have been targets but also in Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Bali, London, Madrid and other places.

What also appears to be universally true is that when met with similar force, the shooters tend to commit suicide or die at the hands of those who met them with force. In either case their killing spree is terminated. While the killers may not have been stopped from killing their first victims, they are stopped from running up the body count in their quest for some misguided ‘glory.’

There are numerous cases of shooters encountering armed resistance, however the mass shootings make the headlines.

 

[The_Barbarian]

When a police officer draws their weapon, they are ready to shoot and plan on shooting. They don’t draw it for a deterent or to scare people, they draw that weapon to use it.

That’s silly. Most of the time, when police draw a gun, they don’t use it. Most people, when they realize an officer is pointing a gun at them, become much more cooperative. Weapons can be a deterrent as well as weapons.

When they should draw that weapon is the exact same reasons when a person with a concealed weapons permit can draw their weapons. You are the one kidding themselves b/c you apparently have no clue what’s involved in law enforcement or conceal & carry permits.

See above. And I’m a little concerned that you think your training, brief as it was, is the equivalent of the training a police officer gets in the use of his sidearm.

Barbarian on the relative hazards:
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.

Statistics and a source, please.

Sure:
**Myth No. 10. “School violence is rampant.”

It may seem so, with media attention focused on a spate of school shootings. In fact, school shootings are extremely rare. Even including the more common violence that is gang-related or dispute-related, only 12 to 20 homicides a year occur in the 100,000 schools in the U.S. In general, school assaults and other violence have dropped by nearly half in the past decade.**
msnbc.msn.com/id/15111438/page/2/
**
The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001.**
library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

About 60 CHL holders were convicted of some form of violent assault in 2006. (excluding cases of sexual assault)
txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2006.pdf

Barbarian observes:
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.

I don’t see in the Catechism where it says we can’t arm teachers.

Since it does increase hazards to students, it is thereby violating our grave responsibility to care for them.

 

[KenEOTE]

That’s silly. Most of the time, when police draw a gun, they don’t use it. Most people, when they realize an officer is pointing a gun at them, become much more cooperative. Weapons can be a deterrent as well as weapons.

You said it all right here. The teachers don’t have to shoot anyone. The fact that one might be armed will make someone think twice about whether or not they will go into that school and do something stupid. The teachers don’t even need to pull the guns out, the fact that they might have them will be a deterrent.

 

[childofmary1143]

What about, instead of teachers being able to carry guns, having plainclothes security, posing as say, school staff so as to prevent any element of surprise that a crazed shooter might have?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
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?

(and it’s anecdote time…)

* from 1876 until 1885, Dodge City had 15 homicides.
* Dodge City's worst year for murder was 1878, when 5 people were murdered.

Not surprising. Dodge City had a “no guns” policy. The shootout at the OK corral was about enforcing that policy. But Dodge was small enough that rigorous enforcement worked. A city like New York or Washington can’t really enforce such a policy.

 

[melensdad]

What about, instead of teachers being able to carry guns, having plainclothes security, posing as say, school staff so as to prevent any element of surprise that a crazed shooter might have?

Please go back and look at this school district, it is rural, it lacks funds. The school administration clearly laid out the problems this district faces. It has a bunch of schools to protect and not enough money to offer protection and education. Also, only specially trained members of faculty can get permission to carry a gun, some of those may be teachers, some may be administrators. In all cases they must obtain special, specific training, provide their own weapons, qualify, and also obtain permission from the school district.

Most of the time, when police draw a gun, they don’t use it.

But when a police officer draws a weapon he is intent upon using it. The fact that, thankfully, they don’t always use it, is just a blessing.

Myth No. 10. “School violence is rampant.”

I don’t see people saying it is rampant. I think you are very confused. I think most people agree it is very rare and hope to keep it very rare.

About 60 CHL holders were convicted of some form of violent assault in 2006.

Out of many MILLIONS who were not.

Since it does increase hazards to students, it is thereby violating our grave responsibility to care for them.

I’m sorry you have not demonstrated that it does increase the hazard. Please go to the states and school districts that have already allowed this for years and show where one member of the school faculty accidentally shot a student. Again, this is only news today because the press picked up on this Texas school. This has been, and is being allowed, in many school districts from elementary through college level in many states across our nation.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Barbarian observes:
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.

The Catechism clearly states that those who are responsible for the care of others (such as parents and TEACHERS), also have a GRAVE duty to see to protect them from harm. If you don’t believe that having armed teachers addresses this DUTY that they have, then how do you suggest that they fulfill this GRAVE duty that they have IF a shooting were to happen?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Not surprising. Dodge City had a “no guns” policy. The shootout at the OK corral was about enforcing that policy. But Dodge was small enough that rigorous enforcement worked. A city like New York or Washington can’t really enforce such a policy.

Then what is the point of having such a policy since it will only be obeyed by those with good intentions (who are not the reason for the law in the first place) leaving them defenseless against those with less than honorable intentions who will not obey the law.

The same agrument and conclusions can be extended to teachers carrying firearms to protect their students.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Catechism clearly states that those who are responsible for the care of others (such as parents and TEACHERS), also have a GRAVE duty to see to protect them from harm.

Yes, and since a shooting accident on the premises, is a greater likelihood than intruders shooting students, we are abdicating our responsibility if we arm teachers.

If you don’t believe that having armed teachers addresses this DUTY that they have, then how do you suggest that they fulfill this GRAVE duty that they have IF a shooting were to happen?

How will you fulfill your GRAVE DUTY if a meteorite hits your kid?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Yes, and since a shooting accident on the premises, is a greater likelihood than intruders shooting students, we are abdicating our responsibility if we arm teachers.

Why would it increase the risk to students? I carry a gun at work everyday. For insurance & bonding reasons, I am required to do so by the owner. It is concealed. It remains concealed. I’m willing to wager that most customers are not even aware that I am armed. It has never left it’s holster because there was never a reason for it to leave the holster. The same would apply to teachers. I don’t see how that would be more risky for ANYBODY. Please explain.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Most of the time, when police draw a gun, they don’t use it.

But when a police officer draws a weapon he is intent upon using it.

No. Every LEO I’ve every talked to about it, says that he is intent on doing everything he can to avoid using it.

Barbarian observes:
Myth No. 10. “School violence is rampant.”

I don’t see people saying it is rampant. I think you are very confused. I think most people agree it is very rare and hope to keep it very rare.

The problem, as you saw earlier, is that you propose to prevent a highly unlikely source of harm to a child by introducing a much more likely source of harm. It’s not really about protecting kids, is it?

Barbarian observes:
About 60 CHL holders were convicted of some form of violent assault in 2006, not including sexual assault.

Out of many MILLIONS who were not.

In 2007, there were 288,909 CHL holders. So that gives us a measure of hazard.

About one in 4,815 is a criminal. (about half the average in Texas, BTW)

So there’s a someone better than on chance in 5,000 that one of them will assault someone in school.

Not much.

But then the FBI stats say that a school can expect a shooting about once every 12,000 years.

So you can see, that the “cure” is far more dangerous than the problem.

Barbarian observes:
Since it does increase hazards to students, it is thereby violating our grave responsibility to care for them.

I’m sorry you have not demonstrated that it does increase the hazard.

See above. Fewer than 1% of CHL holders commit felonies in any given year. But far, far fewer than 1% of schools have shooting in any given year.

But it’s really not about protecting the kids, is it?