Texas - I love living here!!!

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

We've heard the notion in this thread that as a parent one would feel safer if they knew the teachers at their kid's school were carrying concealed weapons. Let's make sure that is really and truly the case.

Let's say that you are relocating to North Texas, and you are researching the school districts in the area, looking for the best one in which to place your child. Let's say you narrow it down to two school districts. You are looking for a difference maker between the two, doing your research, when you discover that one of the school districts has armed teachers and the other doesn't. How does this influence your thinking?

Do you choose the district with the armed teachers, for the reason that your kids will be safer?

Or do you ask yourself, "Why in the world do they need armed teachers in that district? What kind of stuff goes on there?"

Let's say you dig into the matter further, and you research how many incidents each district had in the last several years. You research murders in both school districts, and you find that neither had any. You research incidents of students brandishing guns in both school districts, and you find that neither had any. You research abductions, serious assaults, and so forth, and you find none in either district. For all intents and purposes, the two districts appear to you equally safe for your child.

But then you think to ask whether the armed school district had any incidences of teachers brandishing their weapons. Surely that sort of thing is documented. You learn that yes, weapons were brandished...let's say three times. None of the incidents resulted in any sort of injury.

Does this new information at all influence your determination of which school district seems safer for your child?

You're asking me to answer a hypothetical like that with only the minimal information you provided? If there were no incidents (shootings, abductions/attempts, rapes, etc) in either school, then it seems unreasonable to me to say one school had three incidents where a teacher brandished their weapon. There would be no reason for it, and it would be a felony. Those teachers would be in jail... A small detail you left out of your hypothetical.

So yes, I would be more likely to look for a home within the school district where the teachers are permitted to carry if they so choose. That tells me the school is that much more concerned with the safety and welfare of the children.

Now if that area were truly a bad area and crimes happened regularly at that same school, then I would look elsewhere. I'm not looking to put my kids into a "war zone".

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

It is you who seems to have a problem accepting the problem as defined in the article, and who seeks further clarification. To me the definition is quite simply stated. It doesn't require a novel to define.

You are exactly right in recognizing that I am having a problem accepting the definition of the "problem" Harrold, TX, is facing and am seeking clarification. To me the definition is nowhere near "simply stated." I'd glad that you understand it so clearly, because then you are able to "simply state" it for me in a more lucid way than the article did. I'm also glad that it won't require your writing a book for you to do so.

Please, if it's not too much trouble, help me out by simply and clearly defining the "problem" that Harrold, TX, seeks to address by arming their schoolteachers.

If you don't mind, please don't refer me to the original article yet again. You and I have already established that I don't understand the issue based on my reading of that article. What I am asking is for you to state it in your own words.

The way I see it, it is pointless to offer up solutions, as you requested I and others do, when the problem is neither clearly defined nor fully understood. Since to you the problem is simple to grasp, you won't have any difficulty offering up that definition.

Thanks in advance.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You are exactly right in recognizing that I am having a problem accepting the definition of the "problem" Harrold, TX, is facing and am seeking clarification. To me the definition is nowhere near "simply stated." I'd glad that you understand it so clearly, because then you are able to "simply state" it for me in a more lucid way than the article did. I'm also glad that it won't require your writing a book for you to do so.

Please, if it's not too much trouble, help me out by simply and clearly defining the "problem" that Harrold, TX, seeks to address by arming their schoolteachers.

If you don't mind, please don't refer me to the original article yet again. You and I have already established that I don't understand the issue based on my reading of that article. What I am asking is for you to state it in your own words.

The way I see it, it is pointless to offer up solutions, as you requested I and others do, when the problem is neither clearly defined nor fully understood. Since to you the problem is simple to grasp, you won't have any difficulty offering up that definition.

Thanks in advance.

Fine, I shall attempt to explain their concern/problem, as I understand it, since you are unable to do so yourself.

1) The Police Department is a 30 minute drive away from the school.
2) The school is very close to Hwy 287.
3) The close proximity of the Hwy offers an easy escape route for a criminal who wishes to target the school for the crime of their choice.
4) If someone were to attack the school (shooting, abduction, rape, etc), and if there were no police patrol cars nearby at the time, calling 911 would do no good.
5) Since the police can not arrive to offer protection and assistance in a reasonable time frame, the school is left to it's own resources to provide security and protection.

The following is based on my assumptions
1) This is a very small town, with roughly 100 students in the school. Therefore, it can be assumed the local police force is small. It can also be assumed that there is no off duty police officer available to work a second job as a security guard at the school.
2) If the local police force is small, I assume they don't have the extra bodies to spare by putting onsite cops at the school.

[jefelump]

Now, you have a little more detail of the problem/concern of the Superintendent.

So let's say now that Chumdawg is the Superintendent, and you know how paranoid parents are about the safety and security of their children. You know if you dismiss the problem as nothing to worry about, and then something DOES happen, then you just might find your ass in court. What would you do?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

No, I'm not confused...just not falling for you backtracking like you want me to. Here is your original quote, the one which I said was nonsense.


You then go on and dissect several issues regarding gun rights and explain how they are all seperate issues.

I'm pretty sure I'm not confused.

Amused maybe...but not confused.

I'm sorry, I don't seem to recall asking you if you were confused. Did I miss something? But thanks for letting me know so definitively that you are not confused.

Yes, each issue we have discussed on this thread is a separate issue. But the gun rights of the individuals involved are all similar.

The "douchebag", as you call him - right to bear arms in defense of his neighbor's property, and perhaps his own self defense since the criminal entered his property.

The DC Gun Ban - right to bear arms in DC

The Armed Teachers - right to bear arms in school (the teachers, not the students)

See, they all involved the right to bear arms. The details of each issue are what makes them separate issues.

And to my quote you don't like... there are people who choose to exercise that right to bear arms, who are willing to use them if needed, and there are those who don't believe in guns and don't own one, and wouldn't use one even if they had a legitimate reason. How would you characterize yourself? I think you know where I stand.

I believe you said earlier, something to the effect of "bending over and taking it". Am I to presume that is how you categorize those who will not use a firearm, even if legitimately justified?

Oh, and you STILL haven't answered my question. If you don't like the superintendent's solution, then what is your solution? Or are you hiding behind Chum and pretending there is no problem requiring any solution?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

1) The Police Department is a 30 minute drive away from the school.
2) The school is very close to Hwy 287.
3) The close proximity of the Hwy offers an easy escape route for a criminal who wishes to target the school for the crime of their choice.
4) If someone were to attack the school (shooting, abduction, rape, etc), and if there were no police patrol cars nearby at the time, calling 911 would do no good.
5) Since the police can not arrive to offer protection and assistance in a reasonable time frame, the school is left to it's own resources to provide security and protection.

The following is based on my assumptions
1) This is a very small town, with roughly 100 students in the school. Therefore, it can be assumed the local police force is small. It can also be assumed that there is no off duty police officer available to work a second job as a security guard at the school.
2) If the local police force is small, I assume they don't have the extra bodies to spare by putting onsite cops at the school.

The third assumption, which went unstated, is that an attack on the school in question is likely enough so as to warrant preemptive measures, correct?

[mary]

And to my quote you don't like... there are people who choose to exercise that right to bear arms, who are willing to use them if needed, and there are those who don't believe in guns and don't own one, and wouldn't use one even if they had a legitimate reason. How would you characterize yourself? I think you know where I stand.

I'm certainly no pacifist, if that's what your asking.

Do I own a gun? No.

Would I use one? Under the right circumstances, you bet.

Do I believe in guns? Guns are not "beliefs", they are acutal physical objects, and I'm quite sure they exist.

Are those seperate issues, or the same one?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The third assumption, which went unstated, is that an attack on the school in question is likely enough so as to warrant preemptive measures, correct?

Did anyone at Columbine Highschool think an attack was likely before it happened? Did anyone at Virginia Tech think an attack was likely before it happened?

Security measures are taken to minimize risk. So perhaps the Superintendent feels there is a risk that needs to be addressed. That would be another assumption I would add as number 3. I won't assume anything is imminent, but you may if you like.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mary

I'm certainly no pacifist, if that's what your asking.

Do I own a gun? No.

Would I use one? Under the right circumstances, you bet.

Do I believe in guns? Guns are not "beliefs", they are acutal physical objects, and I'm quite sure they exist.

Are those seperate issues, or the same one?

You're being too literal. When someone says "I don't believe in guns", they aren't questioning the existence of guns. They are stating "I don't believe using guns is right", or something like that.

And why won't you answer my question? If you dislike the solution offered, what is your solution?

[mary]

The reason I was being too literal was to point out the absurdity of the question to begin with.

You say its, "Do you believe in using guns", as if the object or circumstances behind using guns is purely incidental and not worth mentioning - when in fact, that is probably the only thing worth mentioning.

So I'm back to my original point. Guns do not represent a "value system" - they are simpley a means to an end. Whether or not we choose to use that means, obviously has a great deal to do with our value system, or what we're "made of."

There are several reasons I haven't answered your so-called question.

1. Asking me in the first place is really just a way to deflect the discussion we are already having.

2. You still won't acknowledge the complete 180 you did on whether or not the issues that YOU chose to mention were seperate issues, and therefore can be debated seperately, OR whether or not people (and therefore the issues themselves) fall into your nice neat categories that you've already prejudged to be right or wrong.

3. Its really silly to debate something like the finer points of school administration with someone who seems to be a bit of an anarchist. Its like an anorexic asking me for my favorite pie recipe.


By the way, that principal or superindent that you mentioned, that's at risk of being sued by parents if something happens, and it appears they they didn't do anything about it (which for you actually means they didn't choose your solution of arming the teachers) - that risk is never removed....its certainly is NOT removed by handing out guns to the staff. In fact, I would imagine that decision exposes the superindent to even more risk, not less. The thought that this measure would do ANYTHING to eliminate a principal/superindent's exposure is one of the more naive things you've said in this thread. (Besides the fact that avoiding a lawsuit is about one of the dumbest justifications I can possibley imagine for placing guns inside the classroom).

[dalmations202]

The bottom line to most of the gun arguments, IMO, is "who is going to be responsible" for keeping us (whomever you consider the good guys) safe? Is it going to be the government (army, police, etc) or are we going to handle it ourselves.

The second question is who is responsible enough to be put in the position of determining when and where a weapon should be brandished.

The third is "are we safer with no guns around (except maybe the bad guys), or with them around where a child, teacher, etc could get to it and use it in an unlawful manner?


This is always the crux of the gun arguments. (Who, who is responsible, and whether the accidental outweighs the deliberate need.)

IMO, the simple answer would be for the school to send a select few teachers to CHL and maybe even peace officer training, and allow only those who are licensed peace officers to teach and be the on school security officers. You have used the system then to do all that is needed.

If the superintendent really thinks there is a problem, then pay for the teachers to get certified as peace officers. Find the money. Problem resolved.

Just a FYI: Last I knew, it was illegal for even peace officers to bring a gun on a campus (or event) unless invited by administration. *** my father spent some time as a superintendent. ******It is almost never enforced.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

If the superintendent really thinks there is a problem, then pay for the teachers to get certified as peace officers. Find the money. Problem resolved.

Couldn't you use the same money to hire ACTUAL police officers and let them tend to security while the teachers teach?


(I mean, it not like cops make a hell of a lot more money than teachers anyway...)

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Couldn't you use the same money to hire ACTUAL police officers and let them tend to security while the teachers teach?


(I mean, it not like cops make a hell of a lot more money than teachers anyway...)

Let's say I am a small school Texas superintendent. We pay our teachers on avg 35K a year (I have no idea if this is even close anymore -- both parent retired, and sister makes over 50K, but she is a higher paid small town Texas ISD computer district director).

If I have 25 teachers and I can get three to go to peace officer school and get certified. It might cost 20K total to do this. 5K per person for class with ongoing of adding an extra 1500 a year in bonus pay to three current employees. So total cost 20K + 5K yearly.

Yes, every few years, one might leave, and I might have to send a different one to school, but lets face it -- small town teachers usually find a home (at least you can tell the ones the have ties and will stay), and will be there 20 years sometimes.

How many security guards can you hire for 25K or just 5K ongoing?

To get the certification, it takes about 18 hrs of college - academy format, and passing the Texas board test in Austin. If you want to do it from Tarrant county it is Monday through Thursday from 6 - 10:30 p.m. at Tarrant county college, and takes a semester.

This would get you your basic peace officers license, and ensure that you are trained with the firearm, and when you would/should use it, as well as knowing the law about it .


In fact by Texas Education Code:

37.081. SCHOOL DISTRICT PEACE OFFICERS AND SECURITY
PERSONNEL. (a) The board of trustees of any school district may
employ security personnel and may commission peace officers to
carry out this subchapter. If a board of trustees authorizes a
person employed as security personnel to carry a weapon, the person
must be a commissioned peace officer.

[mcsluggo]

I agree with the sentiment that if the school feels like there is a hole in its security, they should explicitly fill it by hiring security. It is kinda BS to me to say "we don't feel our school is safe" and then to answer it by saying "therefore teachers if they feel like it can bring guns to close that gap...if they feel like it" Yes, I realize tht they will be counting on different certifying steps to contol who can or cannot bring guns, but they won't be doing anything to say who WILL or WILL NOT.

This is a school. It should be tighter run than that.

((if any feels like it, can they come on by and teach physics this afternoon?))

or better yet

((I hope someone got around to teaching physics yesterday...))


that said, these small schools are always resourse constrained (that is why so many of them are closing). I have no problem with Dalmation's solution of designating some teachers as security in addition to their other duties, and then training and arming them. it is what it is. My Cousin is a history teacher sic soccer coach sic bus driver in a small rural school. multitasking is the norm... but someone should be ASSIGNED the responsibility, rather than just relying on haphazard chance.

[Underdog]

"Damn, I wanna kill my classmates like Marilyn Manson told me to, but where can I find a gun? Oh, I know - I steal the teacher's!"

(since they have their back to me while they're writing on the board and I'm bigger than them...)

[mary]

How many security guards can you hire for 25K or just 5K ongoing?

Let's say you spend 35K and can only afford one security guard.

Isn't that still logistically more desirable that trying to use three teachers?

In other words, lets say something happens while Licensed Teacher A is teaching class. Only this incident is happening elsewhere, in an unlicensed teacher's room, or in a hall, or anywhere else besides Licensed Teacher A's room.

Shots are fired and who the hell knows what is happening.

Are you telling me that Licensed Teacher A would need to leave his/her students alone to go investigate the incident?

I would have a real problem with that - as a teacher, an administrator, or a parent.

[jthig32]

^That is a fantastic point.

[mary]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

that said, these small schools are always resourse constrained (that is why so many of them are closing). I have no problem with Dalmation's solution of designating some teachers as security in addition to their other duties, and then training and arming them. it is what it is. My Cousin is a history teacher sic soccer coach sic bus driver in a small rural school. multitasking is the norm... but someone should be ASSIGNED the responsibility, rather than just relying on haphazard chance.

Maybe some smaller schools could benefit from better budgeting. I obviously can't speak for all schools, but I went to an EXTREMELY small school in rural Texas (I'm not even sure they can field an 11-man team anymore). Teachers were paid very low, textbooks were usually old, and we were very slow incorporate computers (or any other type of technology) into the general educational environment. We used a building that was built by the PWA.
I think it would have been classified, by any standard, as a "poor" school district.

But that didn't stop us from spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the boy's athletic program.

No siree. We had a fine brand new football stadium, new uniforms, and a well paid coaching staff.

I realize that some school districts may actually be strapped for cash, despite operating efficiently.

There are others that just make bad choices.

Sorry for the OT.

[chumdawg]

How much do metal detectors cost? Would it be reasonable to expect that the careful use of metal detectors would prevent a student/outsider/rogue teacher from bringing a gun on campus?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by mary

Let's say you spend 35K and can only afford one security guard.

Isn't that still logistically more desirable that trying to use three teachers?

In other words, lets say something happens while Licensed Teacher A is teaching class. Only this incident is happening elsewhere, in an unlicensed teacher's room, or in a hall, or anywhere else besides Licensed Teacher A's room.

Shots are fired and who the hell knows what is happening.

Are you telling me that Licensed Teacher A would need to leave his/her students alone to go investigate the incident?

I would have a real problem with that - as a teacher, an administrator, or a parent.

As a parent, I'd rather have three than one. In fact, I am much more likely to have someone closer to what/where something is going down with three spread out amongst a campus than one who is in the parking lot checking cars which are parked in the wrong place or in his office. 35K gets me one year, one guy. 25K gets me one year, but it only runs 5K a year ongoing for three.

As far as leaving his/her students alone -- when a child acts up, do they leave the class alone to escort the offender to the office? When they get called to the office by the principle, do they leave the class alone? Are their times when they have an emergency and have to step out of the class due to "whatever" reason? If they have an aide, have them watch the class. Step next door and ask that teacher to watch both classes for a minute.

This should happen so seldom that you could get around it many different ways.

I'll admit to being out of high school over 20 years and things have probably changed alot -- I know they have because I used to bring guns to school that we went out and shot as a class in outdoor education. The school actually owned a few guns that were locked in a gun safe in a classroom. No one ever got killed from these guns.

I don't agree that just any teachers should be able to bring guns into a classroom for the reason that they are much more likely to be stolen/accidentally used by a child showing off -- than for someone to come in and shoot up the school.
I am not against teachers that have had the training keeping a gun locked in a safe in their desks though in case of security concerns.

I guess that I am saying that if the Admin want more security, and they can find the volunteers to get the training -- then there shouldn't be an issue. If a teacher wants it, and they are willing to get the training -- then there shouldn't be an issue.

Think what you will, but if you come to a gun fight (or it comes to you) with knives, bats, or unarmed (thinking that the police will take care of you and your class) -- then you are very likely to end up raped, beaten or dead along with several of them.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

How much do metal detectors cost? Would it be reasonable to expect that the careful use of metal detectors would prevent a student/outsider/rogue teacher from bringing a gun on campus?

How many outside entrances? Who is going to monitor the doors? What are you going to do if you actually find something?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by mary

Maybe some smaller schools could benefit from better budgeting. I obviously can't speak for all schools, but I went to an EXTREMELY small school in rural Texas (I'm not even sure they can field an 11-man team anymore). Teachers were paid very low, textbooks were usually old, and we were very slow incorporate computers (or any other type of technology) into the general educational environment. We used a building that was built by the PWA.
I think it would have been classified, by any standard, as a "poor" school district.

But that didn't stop us from spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the boy's athletic program.

No siree. We had a fine brand new football stadium, new uniforms, and a well paid coaching staff.

I realize that some school districts may actually be strapped for cash, despite operating efficiently.

There are others that just make bad choices.

Sorry for the OT.

IMO, the real answer is to get athletics out of the school systems and into something like the TAAF.

It will never happen though. Too much money, and too much pride.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

As a parent, I'd rather have three than one. In fact, I am much more likely to have someone closer to what/where something is going down with three spread out amongst a campus than one who is in the parking lot checking cars which are parked in the wrong place or in his office. 35K gets me one year, one guy. 25K gets me one year, but it only runs 5K a year ongoing for three.

You'd rather have three half-trained people with BIGGER priorities than security (like teaching) than one fully-trained officer who has no other priorities except for keeping the school safe, and you're citing MONEY as the reason?

Because 5K is a good amount of money to keep bullets out of your child's brain, but 35K is too much... (I mean, you could always just have another kid, right?)




Or maybe the problem is that 35K is too much to spend on a HYPOTHETICAL problem... I mean, you might want to invest in earthquake-proof buildings, lightening rods on swing sets, and a laser system that can shoot down asteroids - JUST IN CASE...

Or more realistically - where are the safeguards against teachers raping students? (because that happens a hell of a lot more than shootings, but nobody seems to be too concerned about persistent problems when we have so many rarities to worry about...)

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

You'd rather have three half-trained people with BIGGER priorities than security (like teaching) than one fully-trained officer who has no other priorities except for keeping the school safe, and you're citing MONEY as the reason?

Because 5K is a good amount of money to keep bullets out of your child's brain, but 35K is too much... (I mean, you could always just have another kid, right?)




Or maybe the problem is that 35K is too much to spend on a HYPOTHETICAL problem... I mean, you might want to invest in earthquake-proof buildings, lightening rods on swing sets, and a laser system that can shoot down asteroids - JUST IN CASE...

Or more realistically - where are the safeguards against teachers raping students? (because that happens a hell of a lot more than shootings, but nobody seems to be too concerned about persistent problems when we have so many rarities to worry about...)

Half-trained people. No. Trained people whose first concern is the kids yes. Some security guard that only make 35K a year is going to have more concern and know how to handle most of these situations better than a trained, concerned teacher who deals with children on a daily basis? -- depends on the security guard and the teachers I guess.

35K is not the issue-- many may or may not agree. I don't know if the schools budget will allow for full time security guard. I don't know if 35K would get a full time guard that would be a real benefit to the school. I don't know if you could get off-duty guys that are in the game there, or if there are already guys who have left law enforcement to teach.

I expect that you are basing much of what you are writing based upon larger districts that have the budget to do several things. I have been around school systems that didn't have high schools, but had the lower grades, and had to bus out the high schoolers. Everyone played multiple roles because the money just wasn't there in the budget. I have been around a school that canceled a football game because the bus broke down, and they used the money to fix the bus instead of carrying the boys to the game.

I don't know the situation so I am only presenting an option, that I think would be a better one than just allowing teachers to carry guns, if they have their CHL. And Yes, I would still rather have three concerned teachers with secured guns on my campus, than one security guard.

Please don't go there on your last paragraph. In 1968 we had more people killed on US highways than servicemen died in 11 years combined of combat in Vietnam. We still have around ~40 thousand every year killed on US highways, and NO ONE advocates outlawing cars. You pick your battles, and this one is the one that people are worried about at the present time.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Please don't go there on your last paragraph. In 1968 we had more people killed on US highways than servicemen died in 11 years combined of combat in Vietnam. We still have around ~40 thousand every year killed on US highways, and NO ONE advocates outlawing cars. You pick your battles, and this one is the one that people are worried about at the present time.

I'm not talking about "outlawing the car" - I'm talking about "speed limits" (especially in a school zone...)

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by underdog

Or more realistically - where are the safeguards against teachers raping students? (because that happens a hell of a lot more than shootings, but nobody seems to be too concerned about persistent problems when we have so many rarities to worry about...)

speed limit or law against ------ good question.

Teachers raping students is not on the publics list of "things to worry with" at this point in time.

Schools getting shot up by individuals is on that list.

I guess, I related it to the point that 10 times more people are killed in automobiles than are killed by guns in the US, but the sentiment is that guns are the problem.

Probably 10 times more students are raped by teachers than people killed by "crazy kids with guns", but the sentiment is that the kids with guns is the problem.

I do know that their are three sides to every story -- what you see, what I see, then the truth which is usually in the middle somewhere.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

speed limit or law against ------ good question.

Teachers raping students is not on the publics list of "things to worry with" at this point in time.

Schools getting shot up by individuals is on that list.

I guess, I related it to the point that 10 times more people are killed in automobiles than are killed by guns in the US, but the sentiment is that guns are the problem.

Probably 10 times more students are raped by teachers than people killed by "crazy kids with guns", but the sentiment is that the kids with guns is the problem.

I do know that their are three sides to every story -- what you see, what I see, then the truth which is usually in the middle somewhere.

Dammit - nothing to debate here...

[wmbwinn]

Chumdawg:
"I don't see this as that big a deal. After all, couldn't the city simply make a number of the teachers into actual police officers if they so chose? Then they wouldn't even have to conceal the weapons. I'm sure the great majority of large-size schools in this state already have armed police officers on campus as it is."

Jefelump:
"We had an armed police officer at my jr high, back in 1988. That was 20 years ago."

------------------------------

I agree with the two sentiments above. I actually love Chumdawg's idea of deputizing a teacher or two to officially make them police officers or security guards; that idea thereby avoids the whole debate...

put the deputized teacher(s) through appropriate training and be done with it.

Kudos on at least two people thinking this through in the simplest of terms.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Underdog:
"which means proper handgun EDUCATION -- not more guns, or bans -- is probably the best solution to the problem..."

Give the deputized teachers "education" in training. Simple enough.

As to "education" for parents and children regarding the guns they have at home...

That is also a great idea. Switzerland puts every man through military training, has that man take his gun home with him, has that man come back every few years to re-demonstrate that that man has taken care of his gun and can still use it well, etc. Perfect training makes for a well behaved low crime country. See... more gun education about how to properly own and use a gun results in LESS crime...

I like Underdog's ideas. We need more gun education. But... we need the guns to be able to Learn how to use them and care for them....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Chumdawg doing his best Obama/McCain flip flop:
"As I hinted at earlier, I don't see anything demonstrably wrong with, say, a uniformed police officer teaching a class. In fact, that uniform and badge and pistol on the hip do convey, shall we say, a sense of authority that perhaps is missing in certain school situations.

I'll admit, though, that it is somewhat odd to imagine a math teacher working problems on the board with a shoulder holster over his dress shirt. It's probably too close for comfort to the image of a military state.

Aw, hell, the more I think about this and try to consider both sides of the issue, the more ridiculous it seems. On second thought I don't think we want teachers bearing the responsibility of keeping the peace during a murderous rampage that in all likelihood is never going to break out. Those teachers have a job to do that is already tough enough as it is.

And we should probably remember that the Columbine kids intended to do the bulk of their damage with explosives, if I'm not mistaken. Handguns are no defense against explosives. And if the bad guys know that they won't have the only guns in a gunfight, that makes them more predisposed to use explosives.

Maybe shit just happens sometimes, down to human nature, and despite our best interests we might not be able to do anything about it. I mean, compare Columbine and the DISD. Which is more likely to see a gun crime? Put another way: if your job was to take measures to prevent gun crime on every campus in America, where do you start and finish? Where does the DISD rank, compared to Columbine or the podunk Texas school that has authorized its teachers to carry guns? And how many gun crimes of this sort has the DISD experienced, with none of this sort of defense?

Maybe this is using a crane to swat a fly. Maybe we ought to spend more time believing that people are basically good when it comes down to it, rather than obsessing over our potential evil sides and creating these weird, uncomfortable environments for everybody because we are worried about that one nut case who, like Godot, will likely never come.

Now that I think about it, it's probably a good thing that none of my teachers were packing heat. They may not have shot me, but I can't guarantee you I wouldn't have been pistol-whipped a time or two."

I still like the idea of the deputized, trained school teacher sheriff. The teacher is trained. The gun stays on the teacher's person either concealed or fully exposed. A trained law enforcement officer is going to behave appropriately. So, there is nothing bad about this...

The whole idea of having armed law enforcement and "concealed carry" laws is for the rare need to be armed...

Even in a crime infested area like Dallas or Chicago, most police officers never shoot anyone. That doesn't mean the law enforcement officer shouldn't carry a pistol.

Frequency of crime is not really the debate...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Chumdawg:
"I would probably think twice about sending my kid into a potential war zone. I might worry about the message it sends to him. I might even thinking about moving to a small town, away from the urban crime blight, where a kid is free to do so much as attend school without the fear that a gunfight could break out at any time, and is likely enough to do so that the teachers are compelled to carry guns.

Except...I'm already in a small town. What the hell? What is this nation coming to, that even in a small town you might be a sitting duck just sitting in your classroom?"

I agree with you Chum. I won't send my kid to a place where he/she is likely to need protection...

In this same post, you later said that maybe the child should be armed instead of the teacher. I do have a big problem with that idea...

Children fight all the time with each other. They don't need a gun with them...

I like your original idea. Deputize a teacher or two and put that new Sheriff teacher through proper training. Training and education (Underdog) are the issue.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Underdog:
"What if the teacher snaps and starts shooting-up the classroom?


(since we're already acting under the notion that anything can happen at any time...)"

This is why the teacher needs to be deputized and trained. Properly trained persons are unlikely to "snap". The training is designed to remove persons who appear to have any problems that might pre dispose them to "snap". Even the military sends people home when the training demonstrates a problem psychologically that might pre dispose a "snap".

Jefelump:
"Quote:
In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.


So if I'm the head of the school district and I'm looking at a candidate for conceal/carry in one of my schools, you can bet your ass I'm going to want a full psych eval done on him/her. If there's any hint at all of a teacher having problems maintaining order in their classroom, or being just a little unstable, then application to carry in my school district is denied."

Bingo, Underdog...


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Underdog:
"To name a few:


Video of teacher attacking students...

Teacher attacks student in North Carolina...

Teacher attacks first-graders with broom...

Student hit by teacher in Indiana...

Queens teacher punches 12-year-old in face...

Teacher's aide attacks autistic student..."

Again, the idea is to deputize and train persons who are psychologically fit to be trained and who pass the requirements of law enforcement. The idea is not to just let any old crazy teacher carry a gun. We all had teachers that we wouldn't want armed at school...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Chum:
"Yes, I'm sure your 10-year-old is probably already better at using a gun than even your average high school teacher. That's not what gives me reason for pause. What gives me reason for pause is that your average high school teacher used to be able to get through his entire life without ever even handling a gun.

Other than that, I'm not sure what I find more disconcerting, the notion that your prebuscent child is already skilled at wielding a firearm or the notion that you are proud of it.

Seriously, ten years old? What, do you live in the boondocks or something, and you're going to need him to hunt down family food in a couple years? Who teaches a baby to fire a gun?"

I teach my child to use a gun safely and appropriately. My father started teaching me when I was three years old. That was when I started going hunting with him every year. I was eleven before I carried my own gun. I was 13 when I was allowed to carry that gun and hunt somewhere else than next to my father. Point is simple. I was trained. I was fully trained in safety. I can't tell you how many times I got kicked in the arse literally and figuratively for making even a small mistake in gun safety.

Underdog is correct when he says that training is all important. Education must be in place to safely and correctly use a gun.

The sooner you start teaching a child, the better.

Jefelump:
"You said yourself earlier that the kids of NRA members aren't the problem. See, those kids are taught how to use and respect firearms.

And if it were such a bad thing for kids to handle guns, then why do the Cub Scouts have a BB Shooting beltloop?

What gives me pause are those highschool kids who manage to get their hands on guns, who have never shot in their lives and don't have any respect for the weapon. Those kids play video games and think it's cool to shoot. They learn what happens AFTER the fatal shooting."

Dead on, Jefelump. Dead on...


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mary then started expressing great doubt that school teachers were qualified to carry guns.

I agree, Mary. They should deputize a few that are qualified and fit. They should be properly trained.

"By the way, what ever happened to good old fashioned "specialization and the division of labor"?"

I agree, Mary. They should be properly specialized.
My crazy old second grade math teacher that hit us all the time with a bicycle flag pole (long orange flexible stick/flag pole) should never be allowed to carry a gun in the classroom...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jefelump:
"Only those who follow certain requirements and are approved by the authorities can carry a concealed handgun."

Again, we are talking about pursuing a logical approach where the deputized Sheriff teacher is properly trained and licensed...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If I remember correctly from other threads in other places, Mary is looking at a career as a school teacher. Relax, Mary. The idea is not to expect you to pack a gun to school. The idea is that there may be a teacher or two on various campuses that might be appropriately trained as a Sheriff in addition to a school teacher. Might even be a way to see a teacher get paid what they are worth...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jthig32:"Guns have no business in a class room unless they're on the hip of a member of law enforement. If you're worried about enforcement at your school, get a couple off duty police officers to eat some donuts in the teacher's lounge for a while."

Welcome to the full thread topic and discussion, Jthig. Your idea is what we are talking about. Use trained law enforcement. What's wrong with a teacher getting that training?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mary:
"How about answering my first question?

Through what manner or mechanism is this "trust" being established between the principal and the soon-to-be-gun-weilding-teacher?

Do you have any thoughtful solutions, or just more empty hyperbole to offer?"

Honestly, Mary, I thought the question had been answered. The teacher who is going to carry a weapon has been thoroughly trained and deputized (or at least "cleared" by Concealed Carry Rules and other training appropriate to the school teacher; I prefer a full deputization and full training). It is not an issue of the principal deciding who is going to pack a gun in school.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

We've heard the notion in this thread that as a parent one would feel safer if they knew the teachers at their kid's school were carrying concealed weapons. Let's make sure that is really and truly the case.

Let's say that you are relocating to North Texas, and you are researching the school districts in the area, looking for the best one in which to place your child. Let's say you narrow it down to two school districts. You are looking for a difference maker between the two, doing your research, when you discover that one of the school districts has armed teachers and the other doesn't. How does this influence your thinking?

Do you choose the district with the armed teachers, for the reason that your kids will be safer?

Or do you ask yourself, "Why in the world do they need armed teachers in that district? What kind of stuff goes on there?"

Let's say you dig into the matter further, and you research how many incidents each district had in the last several years. You research murders in both school districts, and you find that neither had any. You research incidents of students brandishing guns in both school districts, and you find that neither had any. You research abductions, serious assaults, and so forth, and you find none in either district. For all intents and purposes, the two districts appear to you equally safe for your child.

But then you think to ask whether the armed school district had any incidences of teachers brandishing their weapons. Surely that sort of thing is documented. You learn that yes, weapons were brandished...let's say three times. None of the incidents resulted in any sort of injury.

Does this new information at all influence your determination of which school district seems safer for your child?

Yes, Chumdawg. I would have a problem with the scenario where the teacher waved a gun around 3 times for no reason.

Again, I think:
1)any teacher carrying a gun at school needs to be deputized. I am not in favor of letting teachers just carry guns at school. They need full training and screening just like a law enforcement officer.
2)any law enforcement officer who does use his/her weapon inappropriately is generally found guilty of a crime. The teacher "brandishing" a gun foolishly should be punished for a crime.


We could extrapolate this whole discussion to the same discussion about Security forces carrying guns on airplanes. Remember that debate? The pros for the armed security was to deal with the rare chance of a repeat attempt to hi jack a plane. The con was that a gun fired in an airplane might cause substantial harm in several different fashions. You might recall that the armed guards were placed on planes...

they are all concealed carriers of a weapon and are dressed in regular civilian clothing to draw no attention...

[wmbwinn]

Mary:

"By the way, that principal or superindent that you mentioned, that's at risk of being sued by parents if something happens, and it appears they they didn't do anything about it (which for you actually means they didn't choose your solution of arming the teachers) - that risk is never removed....its certainly is NOT removed by handing out guns to the staff. In fact, I would imagine that decision exposes the superindent to even more risk, not less. The thought that this measure would do ANYTHING to eliminate a principal/superindent's exposure is one of the more naive things you've said in this thread. (Besides the fact that avoiding a lawsuit is about one of the dumbest justifications I can possibley imagine for placing guns inside the classroom)."

I agree with you, Mary. The school superintendent does not need to be in charge of this.

I like Chum's very early idea. Deputize a teacher or two. Put them through proper training. Put the liability on the police force structure where it belongs.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

The bottom line to most of the gun arguments, IMO, is "who is going to be responsible" for keeping us (whomever you consider the good guys) safe? Is it going to be the government (army, police, etc) or are we going to handle it ourselves.

The second question is who is responsible enough to be put in the position of determining when and where a weapon should be brandished.

The third is "are we safer with no guns around (except maybe the bad guys), or with them around where a child, teacher, etc could get to it and use it in an unlawful manner?


This is always the crux of the gun arguments. (Who, who is responsible, and whether the accidental outweighs the deliberate need.)

IMO, the simple answer would be for the school to send a select few teachers to CHL and maybe even peace officer training, and allow only those who are licensed peace officers to teach and be the on school security officers. You have used the system then to do all that is needed.

If the superintendent really thinks there is a problem, then pay for the teachers to get certified as peace officers. Find the money. Problem resolved.

Just a FYI: Last I knew, it was illegal for even peace officers to bring a gun on a campus (or event) unless invited by administration. *** my father spent some time as a superintendent. ******It is almost never enforced.

Dalmations has the same idea as I. It is the same idea pointed out by Chum several pages ago...

I think it is a good idea.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

How much do metal detectors cost? Would it be reasonable to expect that the careful use of metal detectors would prevent a student/outsider/rogue teacher from bringing a gun on campus?

Too many guns have no or few metal parts in them anymore...

[wmbwinn]

Now, let us shift the discussion to something much more interesting that po dunk Texas efforts to protect schools that may or may not need protecting...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Friday, August 15, 2008

On July 31, House Democrats and Republicans joined in a bi-partisan effort to introduce legislation that would overturn Washington, D.C.’s newly enacted emergency gun control laws. These laws continue to defy the recent Supreme Court ruling by continuing to restrict District of Columbia residents’ right to self-defense.

In a strong bipartisan effort, Congressmen Travis Childers (D-Miss.), John Dingell (D-Mich.), John Tanner (D-Tenn.), Mike Ross (D-Ark.), and Mark Souder (R-Ind.), along with 52 of their colleagues, introduced the "Second Amendment Enforcement Act" (H.R. 6691). This critical NRA-backed legislation is needed to enforce the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

On June 26, the U. S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." The Supreme Court clearly stated that handguns are constitutionally-protected arms because they are commonly used, are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, are considered by the American people to be the quintessential self-defense firearm, are the most popular firearm chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and are the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of home and family.

The "Second Amendment Enforcement Act" will:

Repeal the District's ban on semi-automatic handguns. Semi-automatic pistols have been the most commonly purchased handguns in the United States over the last 20 years, and therefore a ban on those firearms is unconstitutional as decided by Heller;

Restore the right of self-defense by repealing the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home;

Reform the current D.C. registration system that requires multiple visits to police headquarters; ballistics testing; passing a written test on D.C. gun laws; fingerprinting; and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days. The current system is unduly burdensome and serves as a vehicle for even more onerous restrictions; and

Create a limited exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Currently there are no firearms dealers in the District of Columbia, and the federal ban prohibits residents from purchasing handguns outside of the District; therefore, District residents have no means of purchasing handguns.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=4141

I propose we leave po dunk Texas behind for a while and get back to national politics...

Ain't it grand?? The Supreme Court has no power in Washington DC...

The Supreme Court tells Washington DC that their anti gun laws are unconstitutional...

Washington DC declares an emergency (basically martial law rules) and under emergency directives re-institutes the unconstitutional laws...

[jthig32]

Link

In a weird coincidence, here's a news story about the issue, brought to you by......the "Boom goes the Dynamite" guy.

Play the video on the right hand side.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Link

In a weird coincidence, here's a news story about the issue, brought to you by......the "Boom goes the Dynamite" guy.

Play the video on the right hand side.

At the end it says that the teacher packing a gun to school has to:
1)have a Texas CHL (which requires training and testing)
2)pass training in crisis management

I personally doubt that doing those two things is enough to afford the school district enough legal protection for the liability of having the armed teacher should the teacher ever use the gun.

The above two requirements may be enough for the teacher to be legally able to carry the gun though. But, I would be afraid of trying to legally defend the teacher in court if I was a lawyer...

I think that Chumdawg's (and Dalmation202 and I and others) idea of training the armed teacher to the level of a deputized law enforcement officer is necessary to really do this right.