# Guns in public schools?



## KenpoTex (Sep 10, 2006)

This was something that came to my mind again as I was reading through the thread about the Utah Supreme Court ruling. I'm starting a new thread so we don't drift that one too far off topic.

It sounds like most of us feel that the aforementioned ruling is a positive development so let's take this one step farther. Can someone give me any good reason that the teachers/admin. in public elementary, junior, and high schools should not be allowed to carry? Here are a few good reasons why I feel they should. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html


Before anyone says that allowing teachers/staff to be armed would not accomplish anything, or would be too dangerous; consider the following incident: (full article here)




> *Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi  1998*
> After killing his mother, Luke Woodham took a gun to Pearl High School, where he shot and killed the girl who had broken up with him a year earlier. He killed two at that high school and injured seven.
> Assistant Principal Joel Myrick heard the first shot and saw Woodham with a gun. Myrick had a .45 in his pickup truck parked a quarter-mile away, off school property. You see, federal law said he couldnt bring that gun onto school property.
> Myrick sprinted to his truck and got his gun. He got back to the school in time to confront Woodham as he was trying to leave in his mothers car. He later said he was headed to the middle school to shoot more people.Myrick put the .45 in Woodhams face and ordered him out of the car and on the ground. He held him there for the cops, saving lives.


 
How might all these incidents have turned out if there had been someone who could have stopped the shooters sooner? I'm guessing the body-count would be a lot lower.


----------



## Grenadier (Sep 10, 2006)

If we trust our teachers to cultivate the minds of the children, then we should trust them to carry firearms, provided that they can lawfully own and carry them. 

Criminals will not obey the laws of the land, and will continue to bring unlawful firearms into areas that prohibit them.


----------



## bydand (Sep 10, 2006)

This a topic that I have long thought of.  Now that I have kids in the public school system my thought have solidified into the "good idea" side.  Let me explain, I know the teachers and administrators in our district and know that each of them WOULD put themselves in harms way for any child in the school, give them something to defend themselves (and the children) with.  I also think that they would have to have a CCW and follow the rules pertaining to obtaining one.  I further think that if they chose that option they would need to keep it ON THEIR PERSON, only because as a kid, I could get into any locked drawer or cabnet in a classroom.  A purse or drawer is not a safe place to keep a firearm when there are kids around.  A good idea would be the district mandating a "combat course" to those employees who chose to carry while working, just so they have a bit more training to handle a situation that might arise in a crowded building sitting.   MY .02 only.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 10, 2006)

bydand said:


> I also think that they would have to have a CCW and follow the rules pertaining to obtaining one.


this goes without saying...



bydand said:


> I further think that if they chose that option they would need to keep it ON THEIR PERSON, only because as a kid, I could get into any locked drawer or cabnet in a classroom. A purse or drawer is not a safe place to keep a firearm when there are kids around.


Definately.  Not only is keeping the weapon on their person safer, it's really the only practical way to respond to an attack.  The weapon will do you no good if it's in your purse or locked in a drawer when the stuff hits the fan.




bydand said:


> A good idea would be the district mandating a "combat course" to those employees who chose to carry while working, just so they have a bit more training to handle a situation that might arise in a crowded building sitting. MY .02 only.


also a good suggestion.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 10, 2006)

Does anyone know of an incident that occured at a public school where someone with a CCW used their weapon inapropriately?

Jeff


----------



## bydand (Sep 10, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Does anyone know of an incident that occured at a public school where someone with a CCW used their weapon inapropriately?
> 
> Jeff



I cannot think of a single time, but in this day of lawsuits a bit of extra training might be a bit of extra "insurance" showing that the district did things to the best of their ability.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 10, 2006)

Being a public school teacher myself, I do not want a gun, nor do I want guns present in the school.  The only person in my school who carries a gun is our School Resource Officer, who is a police officer in the local precinct.  Having guns would have several negative effects that concern me:

- the risk of accident
- the risk of leaving them somewhere
- too many teachers will be unable/unwilling to meet carry requirements, and having _some_ teachers have CCW and some not could cause more problems than it solves; who's going to keep track?
- school violence has been dropping for some time although bullying is on the rise
- makes the students less comfortable in the school setting - this one is the key for me.  Students need to feel safe in schools, and too many of my students see guns at home - some have even been shot at - and I am not interested in adding that level of insecurity to my students' lives.


----------



## Ceicei (Sep 10, 2006)

Utah does allow for carry with CCW permits onto public school properties.  However, administrators of these public schools often strongly discourage their faculty from doing so.  They do ask CCW parents to report when they carry, but law does not reqiure this; most parents will carry anyway without reporting (or leave their weapons in cars/at home).  

It was very difficult to get this part passed and clarified in Utah Code a few years ago regarding public schools. 

It was not too long ago court facilities were required to provide gun lockers for those who CCW.  Even with this, there is still quite a bit of resistance.  This point is good for another thread though.

- Ceicei


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 10, 2006)

Ceicei said:


> Utah does allow for carry with CCW permits onto public school properties. However, administrators of these public schools often strongly discourage their faculty from doing so. They do ask CCW parents to report when they carry, but law does not reqiure this; most parents will carry anyway without reporting (or leave their weapons in cars/at home).


Interesting...it sounds like Utah has pretty decent CCW laws overall?


----------



## Ceicei (Sep 10, 2006)

kenpotex said:


> Interesting...it sounds like Utah has pretty decent CCW laws overall?



Well, Utah is very pro-hunting, so that helps.  Some legislators are quite friendly to RKBA and CCW issues.  So far, the State legislature continues in this direction.  There are many very good laws, but we still do have quite a few bad ones we are trying to amend or remove.  We do have some success and failures in the legislative areas. 

For example:  Used to be that guns are allowed in just about any church/religious places, but now the law was changed to show if churches/religious places post notification of not allowing guns [on the BCI website], guns are now prohibited from these specific churches.  This too, is an issue worthy of another thread.

- Ceicei


----------



## Drac (Sep 10, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Being a public school teacher myself, I do not want a gun, nor do I want guns present in the school. The only person in my school who carries a gun is our School Resource Officer, who is a police officer in the local precinct


 
As an LEO I think we will soon see the day where *EVERY* school has a *Resource Officer..* Its a sad comment on our times, but some of these teens and pre-teen are un-controllable..The local PD responds to the High School at least twice a month for assault on teacher calls..Some big 6'-2'' 250lbs male decides that the teacher "dissed" him and attackes some 5'1"" 110 lbs female teacher..And as much as some of these "gang-banger-wannabe-ganstas *NEED *a painful lesson..Life for the teacher in the aftermath of a shooting would be hell...


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 10, 2006)

Kacey said:


> - school violence has been dropping for some time although bullying is on the rise



Isn't that a bit of a semantic change?  Bullying is a form of violence, right?

It's kind of like police departments that don't have a gang problem...  just problems with groups of people associating together to commit crimes and graffiti.


----------



## Drac (Sep 10, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> It's kind of like police departments that don't have a gang problem... just problems with groups of people associating together to commit crimes and graffiti.


 
Did some department actually make such an* asinine* remark?????


----------



## Kacey (Sep 10, 2006)

Drac said:


> As an LEO I think we will soon see the day where *EVERY* school has a *Resource Officer..* Its a sad comment on our times, but some of these teens and pre-teen are un-controllable..The local PD responds to the High School at least twice a month for assault on teacher calls..Some big 6'-2'' 250lbs male decides that the teacher "dissed" him and attackes some 5'1"" 110 lbs female teacher..And as much as some of these "gang-banger-wannabe-ganstas *NEED *a painful lesson..Life for the teacher in the aftermath of a shooting would be hell...



Actually, we love our SRO, and he prevents quite a few problems in both the school and the community, because students become accustomed to seeing him and his counterparts in other schools as non-threatening members of the community, rather than solely as enforcement, and they are reporting concerns much sooner than before officers were placed - thereby reducing crime by increasing preventive reporting.  It's rare that our SRO is needed for fights, and I don't recall the last assault (as separate from spontaneous fights) - and I've been in the same building for 10 years.



jks9199 said:


> Isn't that a bit of a semantic change?  Bullying is a form of violence, right?
> 
> It's kind of like police departments that don't have a gang problem...  just problems with groups of people associating together to commit crimes and graffiti.



Sorry, I wasn't clear - bullying (which is indeed violence, but of a different nature) is on the rise, but weapon-related violence is dropping.  Much of the rise in bullying, however, is not due to an actual increase, but to a greater understanding of what behaviors are actually bullying, and a decreasing acceptance of such behaviors - which, in my opinion, are part of why the more-traditionally reported forms of violence are dropping; bullying is a "gateway" violent behavior, and nipping it early prevents more violence later.


----------



## bydand (Sep 10, 2006)

Drac said:


> As an LEO I thiink we will soon see the day where *EVERY* school has a *Resource Officer..* Its a sad comment on our times, but some of these teens and pre-teen are un-controllable..The local PD responses to the High School at least twice a month for assault on teacher calls..Some big 6'-2'' 250lbs male decides that the teacher "dissed" him and attackes some 5'1"" 110 lbs female teacher..And as much as some of these "gang-banger-wannabe-ganstas *NEED *a painful lesson..Life for the teacher in the aftermath of a shooting would be hell...



I agree that the teacher who actually HAD to use a weapon would be in for a hard time, there is also that added protection of just having a weapon.  That 250# male would be a bit more reserved if they knew that the 110# female teacher could send him out of school with a few more holes in him that when he arrived.  The knowledge that several people in the building could do the same, even if the teacher themselves didn't have a weapon, would be a strong distraction from violence.  As sad as it is to say, violence and violent people are detered only by others who CAN (not are) be more distructive than themselves. IMHO

It all boils down to easy targets, when I was in school EVERYBODY carried a knife, some folding pocket types, others sheathed hunting style.  did anybody use them against somebody else? Not that I ever even heard about.  Was there fights, sure, but really not too many.  Now that schools have strict no weapons of any type policies, those who don't live by the rules have easy targets because they are the only ones armed with either knifes or firearms.  Take away that advantage and instead of playgrounds and hallways turning into combat zones, I truely think the violence would go down. Nobody wants to start a fight of any kind that there is a chance they are not going to win it.


----------



## Ceicei (Sep 10, 2006)

Not too long ago, petitions were passed around to put the issue of prohibiting guns in public schools before the legislature.  This was attempted state-wide three separate times, but at each of those drives, they failed to muster enough signatures from the public.

This says something....

- Ceicei


----------



## bydand (Sep 10, 2006)

Kacey, I totally respect your position and am not the wild/fanatical person some of my posts come across as.  I am not saying every teacher, adminstrator, staff member should carry.  Just that it would cut down on the number of these type crimes.  As you stated in your last post, the number of weapon related violence is dropping in your district because of the presences of your SRO.  Just what we have been discussing, in action.  I think SRO's are a great idea, but not all districts can justify them.  Our district has a hard time keeping the lights and heat on most years, hiring an additional person would kill our budget. We have a very large freshmen class this year with a whopping 33 students.  (not per class/ the entire class) That will give you a reference to the size of school we have here.  The largest high school in the area has a graduating class of 125 usually.  We simply cannot afford to hire SRO's who cannot also teach or fulfill another position in the school they serve.


----------



## Drac (Sep 10, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Actually, we love our SRO, and he prevents quite a few problems in both the school and the community, I don't recall the last assault (as separate from spontaneous fights) - and I've been in the same building for 10 years.


 
That great...The SRO's up here show up to their school posts in almost SWAT gear..BDU's, Boots, etc..etc...They wear top of the line body armor that is stab and shot resistant..THey know all the *"little darlings"* by name as well as their parents names...


----------



## Kacey (Sep 10, 2006)

bydand said:


> Kacey, I totally respect your position and am not the wild/fanatical person some of my posts come across as.  I am not saying every teacher, adminstrator, staff member should carry.  Just that it would cut down on the number of these type crimes.  As you stated in your last post, the number of weapon related violence is dropping in your district because of the presences of your SRO.  Just what we have been discussing, in action.  I think SRO's are a great idea, but not all districts can justify them.  Our district has a hard time keeping the lights and heat on most years, hiring an additional person would kill our budget. We have a very large freshmen class this year with a whopping 33 students.  (not per class/ the entire class) That will give you a reference to the size of school we have here.  The largest high school in the area has a graduating class of 125 usually.  We simply cannot afford to hire SRO's who cannot also teach or fulfill another position in the school they serve.


Actually, the district doesn't pay for the SROs in our schools.  They have proved to be such a positive influence that they are paid for by the police department, which has seen a decrease in crimes by children and teens, and, to a lesser extent in the community - especially among the community members who attended schools which had SROs.  The decrease appears to be due, at least in part, to the newly emerging perception among those students and former students who went to schools with SROs that the police are, indeed, there to help, and are approachable - as opposed to a conflicting public opinion that officers are only there to interefere in peoples' private lives, and that no one in their right mind would approach an officer under any circumstances.

In addition, our SRO (and most of the others) also replace our truant officer, a position that was cut for budgetary reasons - which means the truant kids are in schools - not the community - during the day, when they would otherwise be getting into trouble - because the SROs will perform home visits and bring truant students to school, sometimes kicking and screaming - and will enforce the idea that they need to be in school, unless they - and their parents - want to be somewhere considerably less pleasant.  The reduction in crime with these students in the building has, in large part, provided the ability for the department to provide SROs to schools - because they're not out looking for kids who are shoplifting, destorying/defacing property, breaking and entering, and so on, during the school day.



Drac said:


> That great...The SRO's up here show up to their school posts in almost SWAT gear..BDU's, Boots, etc..etc...They wear top of the line body armor that is stab and shot resistant..THey know all the *"little darlings"* by name as well as their parents names...


SROs in my district wear the same full uniform as any other patrol officer - which includes weapons, bulletproof vest (under the shirt) and walky-talkies - but that's it.  They know the kids in their school because they often spend lunches in the cafeteria, getting to know the kids who *don't* get in trouble as well as checking on the ones who do - and providing positive encouragement to those who are staying out of trouble, such as rewards for attendance.


----------



## Lisa (Sep 10, 2006)

This is a very interesting debate.

Not having this in my community.  We have no armed Police/SRO's or security officers of any kind in our public school system, I wonder how the parent's react to such an idea?

I don't think it would pass here to be honest, at least not at this time, althought the idea does have merit in my opinion.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 10, 2006)

This issue is hard for most of us to really wrap our brains around; but an examination of the arguements on both sides really speaks to the collective phobias and rational of our time and culture.

It is interesting to hear the impractical arguements regarding the issue on both sides (not refering or pointing fingers to anyone here, I am saying accross the board and in general). Without addressing those, let's just speak in pragmatic terms here.

Let's pretend that it is legal to concealed carry with a license in schools, and that the issue gets no real attention because carrying or not carrying isn't considered a "big deal" by anyone. What would the results be?

We can say that there wouldn't be a flooding of cases of guns being left all over the school and kids and staff blowing each others heads off. We can also say that many terrorist attacks wouldn't be thwarted by Kindergarden cops across america either. So what can we say?

Business would go on as usual. Students would learn and develop as they would with or without the regulation. Most of the staff would opt not to carry a firearm, as they do in their daily lives already. And the ones that do carry; people won't know and it won't matter in the day to day lives of everyone at the school because they are doing so legally and concealed.

There would be no negative impacts caused by allowing people to carry in schools, and life would go on business as usual.

However, that one time that there is a terrorist attack, whether columbine-like or otherwise, more staff will have the option of defending themselves and their students. Would-be assailents would have to worry about who might defend the school besides 1 SRO who can't be everywhere or defend everything.

Staff in tough school districts who live in tough neighborhoods would also have the option to carry as well; and wouldn't have to be afraid going to their cars and homes at night.

It is real easy to say that "my school (or home, or neighborhood, etc.) is safe, so I don't need to carry a weapon." That is fine for your personal choice. But it is quite another all too easy of a thing to say that, "Since we are safe, we shouldn't let others carry a weapon in our environment."

Everyone thinks there safe until something happends to prove that they are not. Then it is this big shocker; a big surprise to the media and to most people who simply choose to not see the warning signs or the possabilities.

Do we want to have better homeland security? Do we want to be safer in our schools, and public places in general? Well...who do you think that is up too? The Bush Administration? The local police who can't be everywhere? When more people realize that it is up to the individual to ensure safety and self-defense, and that the private citizen is almost always the first responder, then the safer we will be. 

Controlling where we can and can't carry a weapon isn't the way to get to that safer, or free society...


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 10, 2006)

Kind of a sidebar:

I find it real interesting that many people would rather have an armed officer in the schools to police their kids then to allow teachers the personal right to carry at their workplace. This kind of implies a lot of interesting things about where our society has gone for some people, and where it could go.

Paul


----------



## Kacey (Sep 10, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> However, that one time that there is a terrorist attack, whether columbine-like or otherwise, more staff will have the option of defending themselves and their students. Would-be assailents would have to worry about who might defend the school besides 1 SRO who can't be everywhere or defend everything.
> 
> Staff in tough school districts who live in tough neighborhoods would also have the option to carry as well; and wouldn't have to be afraid going to their cars and homes at night.



Here's the thing most people don't think about in regards to Columbine (which is about 20 miles south of my house, and 35 south of the school I teach at)... it's in an upper middle class neighborhood - the kind that would not be high on the list for SROs, because it's not the kind of "tough neighborhood... [where staff] wouldn't have to be afraid going to their cars and homes at night."  I work in one of those "tough neighborhoods" and I have no concern about my safety at work or on the grounds around the school, because the SRO is there - but not because he carries a gun; it's because the parents and kids go to him with their concerns, and the few times in the 10 years I've been there that weapons (mostly knives, and the one gun wasn't loaded... and yes, I work in a middle school) have been brought to school, at least 10-15 kids have reported - either to him or to a teacher - that the weapon was in the building within the first hour.



Tulisan said:


> It is real easy to say that "my school (or home, or neighborhood, etc.) is safe, so I don't need to carry a weapon." That is fine for your personal choice. But it is quite another all too easy of a thing to say that, "Since we are safe, we shouldn't let others carry a weapon in our environment."



Lazarus Long, a character in many novels written by Robert Heinlein, had two opposing viewpoints on this one:

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - which appears to be your view

and

(when referring to the character's childhood in the early 1900's) "...guns were legal and no one carried them."

Carrying guns, in my opinion, ups the ante - a gun has only one intent, and that is to kill; shooting to wound is an unrealistic concept.



Tulisan said:


> Everyone thinks there safe until something happends to prove that they are not. Then it is this big shocker; a big surprise to the media and to most people who simply choose to not see the warning signs or the possabilities.
> 
> Do we want to have better homeland security? Do we want to be safer in our schools, and public places in general? Well...who do you think that is up too? The Bush Administration? The local police who can't be everywhere? When more people realize that it is up to the individual to ensure safety and self-defense, and that the private citizen is almost always the first responder, then the safer we will be.
> 
> Controlling where we can and can't carry a weapon isn't the way to get to that safer, or free society...



The problem with weapons laws is that they _only_ control those who are law-abiding; as the bumper sticker says:  "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns".  Legalizing them, however, will not fix the problem.  Enforcement of laws already in place - strict enforcement - however, could lead to a polite society that does not need guns in daily life to maintain itself.  I could get a CCW, certainly - but I won't.  Arming law-abiding citizens won't discourage criminals - it only ups the ante.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 10, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Kind of a sidebar:
> 
> I find it real interesting that many people would rather have an armed officer in the schools to police their kids then to allow teachers the personal right to carry at their workplace. This kind of implies a lot of interesting things about where our society has gone for some people, and where it could go.
> 
> Paul



As a staff member, I would rather our SRO not carry his gun - but the precinct won't allow it.

As a teacher, I had better *not* need a gun (or any other weapon) to maintain behavior in my classroom - that would imply a level of distrust in my students that is disturbing.  I have never needed to use any form of violence in my classroom - at any level (and I've taught at all grade and SES levels) - I've raised my voice on occasion, and that is it - and the same goes for every teacher I know.  Columbine is the exception, not the rule - but like plane crashes (which kill fewer people than accidents in bathtubs) events like that are large, spectacular, and disturbing - so they receive attention out of proportion to the event.  I am by no means saying it shouldn't receive attention - but it makes the problem seem much more severe than it really is.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 10, 2006)

First and foremost what are teachers trying to attempt at school?  What is their job?  It is simply to teach and educate our kids.  To often now a days people are being asked to do more and more at their job with less and less resources.  If teachers were mandated to carry handguns to protect the children they would have to undergo extensive training.  Who pays for this?  Will it really ensure safety at the school?  Plus are they wearing to many hats already.  Having a history of parents and friends that are or were teachers I can honestly say that most, if not all would not have wanted to carry a handgun at school nor would they probably have done a good job with it as a duty to do so.

My experience with public schools currently consists of my kids being in the buildings and I would love to see a trained SRO in every building.  That would make sence and would give teachers the ability to teach and yet still have a stable security/police presence on the property.  

Currently in Michigan you cannot carry your ccw on a public school property.  I actually have no problem with that.  The less people carrying guns around our kids the better in my opinion.

Having said that I believe that everyone that is legally able to and mentally sound should have the right to carry a CCW.  I have no problems with that at all.  In Michigan it is great that we can get a CCW it was not always that way.

Just my take.


----------



## Grenadier (Sep 10, 2006)

Law-abiding folks who go through the process to obtain a concealed carry permit, are not going to be the types that cause trouble.  For the most part, they're going to seek training on their own.  

Criminals will thumb their noses at the law, and bring their firearms into the school, despite the laws that are supposed to forbid them from doing so.  

The way I see it, if teachers have undergone a background check, and are qualified to carry firearms, then they should be allowed to do so.  Allowing them to carry does not change their primary purpose, and that's to be the educators of our children.  

Even if such things are enacted, most teachers will probably choose not to carry firearms.  That's fine and dandy, since it's their choice to not do so.  However, the few that do can act as a last-ditch safety net, in case of the most extreme situations.  Those few that have gone through the process of obtaining a concealed carry permit are not going to be the types to cause trouble.  

Some of the folks here have said that they would much rather see an armed security guard there, but the Columbine incident proved that an  armed security guard isn't the cure-all that they perceive.  If anything, the guard there tried to fire off a shot or two, and then fled the scene.  He was of no help at all.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 10, 2006)

Once again, it is very interesting to see how these arguements mirror our cultural perceptions.

It is interesting that one would consider an inanimate object "good" or "evil" when it has no intent or ability to harm on it's own. A gun is no more dangerous or meaningful then a toaster by itself. It is the utlilization of the inanimate object that could be harmful or helpful; and that will depend on the user.

So I find arguements like, "The further guns are way from our kids, the better," an interesting one, as it seems to anthropomorphicize an inanimate object. I would think that sort of ideal is more harmful then the issue we are discussing.

I also find it interesting that the subject of manditory training and arming of our teachers would be on the table for debate at all. I always hope that this is a straw man created by the anti-gun side, which it often is, but I unfortunatily have seen pro gun folks go off on this tangent in support of such an idea. I would think the job of a teacher, the one that they signed up for, is to teach our kids. They didn't sign up for armed homeland security work, and shouldn't be forced in that direction. They, like every other citizen, should have the right to choose if they want to take up the task of defending themselves and others or not, and how they would do so. Yet it is interesting that the discussion would even go in this kind of absurd direction. It is especially interesting that one would even suggest the thought of teacher policing our kids through the use of firearms, whether to argue for or against it. To take the discussion to such extremes of fantasy that really suggests that we are culturally dillusional when it comes to this topic.

I also find the "guns up the anti" arguement incredibly interesting. We can't easily control who will use a gun, who will carry a gun, and who won't. We can only maintain the illusion that we can. So, we have prevented the people who will respect our societal dilusions from "uping the anti" by not allowing them to carry a gun in certain places; and these people are usually the law abiding citizens. Thus, we strip the right to respond from those who don't respect our societal dilusions; thus giving those who would harm us the power and control to decide to "up the anti" or not. Essentially, the arguement gives the power to the criminal to decide to "up the anti," while leaving the law abiding citizen powerless. Being comfortable in this powerlessness while at the same time being willing to impose the same powerlessness on others is somewhat pathalogical.

And lastly, I also find it interesting, as Grenadier mentioned, that there was an armed SRO on duty when Columbine occured. This should smack in the face the illusion that the police, security, SRO, or basically "someone else" that is out there will protect us; but it won't for most people. Essentially the reality that it is the individual who ultimatily has to decide if and how to protect oneself and others is a level of personal responsability that most aren't willing to face.  

In all practicality, most societies today won't allow guns in schools by law. So, this thread is almost completely a useless waste of time. But the rational is over the issue is interesting and entertaining at least, in that it implies quite a bit.


----------



## tradrockrat (Sep 10, 2006)

Well here I go - bear with me

First, I am a huge fan of firearms.  I believe in their positive benifits to society.  However -

A teacher should never have need to carry a gun - we are supposed to be fostering a comunity of safety and caring.  In todays society an armed individual is NOT looked at in that light.  It just doesn't work in todays social standards and norms.  But a teacher with a gun is not going to be able to create this atmosphere IMHO.  Now I am torn over this because I grew up hearing stories about my fathers gun club he belonged to in Highschool wherein they were actually allowed to bring their rifles and shoot together under staff supervision after school. There were never any problems with them and I believe whole heartedly that if we were a society that still allowed gun clubs, Columbine would never have happened.  (would you go after your peers when they not only had guns of their own, but knew how to use them?).  

On a practical side - as a Special Ed. Teacher I am often forced to go hands on with a student and I most definitely DO NOT want a student anywhere near my holster while I am trying to control them.  It is an accident waiting to happen.  Plus - quite frankly - it is not my job.  I have enough on my plate on a daily basis.

There should be an armed officer in every school whos job is to maintain the peace through exclusion.  He keeps out the violent elements.  He should wear all of the gear and most importantly the uniform because that IS considered a sign of safety and concern.  I state this because the sad fact is they are most definitely a preventitive measure to kids who might "snap" or otherwise try to kill / maim their peers and teachers - though obviously not 100 percent effective.  It presents an image of "Outside" vs. "Inside".  "Outside" is where the guns belong and the Officer is there to make sure they don't make it "Inside".  Giving me a gun defeats that purpose.

JMHO


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 11, 2006)

a couple of thoughts after seeing everyone else's comments:

A couple of people have voiced an objection because they feel that teachers were armed it would somehow damage the atmosphere of caring/trust/whatever in the school. 
There have also been a couple of comments about how teachers should never need a weapon to perform their jobs. 

I never suggested (and I don't think anyone else has either) that the teachers should take over a "police" type role. Their job is to teach, it is the job of SRO's to "police." All that was ever suggested was that they be allowed to carry their weapon if they were already legally allowed to do so. I don't see how a teacher with a concealed handgun (emphasis on the word "Concealed") would create a problem. None of the students would ever even have to know (and shouldn't know) that the teacher is armed. They wouldn't be carrying a weapon for enforcement or disciplinary functions, they'd be carrying it for the same reason that any other CCW'er carries his/her weapon: so that they could effectively respond if/when they were ever confronted with a threat of deadly-force. 

I'm not even going to touch on the comments about guns "uping the ante," I personally find comments like those somewhat laughable.

Like Paul said, this thread is really kinda useless. Unfortunately we'll probably never see a day when anything like this would happen so it doesn't make much sense to debat it. I just thought it'd be interesting to see what everyone thought.


----------



## Ceicei (Sep 11, 2006)

Useless thread?  Maybe not.  It does bring out discussion of how we think and how society influence us.

There are some states that have "more liberal" gun laws than others.  A thread like this does help show that it is possible, if the community wants/allows this, for guns to be carried on public school properties.

Debating the reasoning behind this can only bring out the good in fostering an open dialogue.

- Ceicei


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 11, 2006)

> and too many of my students see guns at home



I was looking through the posts on this thread again and this line really stood out.

Kacey, please don't take this as an attack, but could you explain your thoughts on this?  Just seeing a gun is a traumatic experience?

Thanks,

Jeff


----------



## MJS (Sep 11, 2006)

Drac said:


> As an LEO I think we will soon see the day where *EVERY* school has a *Resource Officer..* Its a sad comment on our times, but some of these teens and pre-teen are un-controllable..The local PD responds to the High School at least twice a month for assault on teacher calls..Some big 6'-2'' 250lbs male decides that the teacher "dissed" him and attackes some 5'1"" 110 lbs female teacher..And as much as some of these "gang-banger-wannabe-ganstas *NEED *a painful lesson..Life for the teacher in the aftermath of a shooting would be hell...


 
Many schools in CT in the larger cities, have a SRO, for the reasons that have been mentioned.  IMO, I'd rather see the SRO, than have every teacher armed.  If it did get to that point though, where teachers/admin. were carrying them, I'd want them to go through an extensive training course.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Sep 11, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Kind of a sidebar:
> 
> I find it real interesting that many people would rather have an armed officer in the schools to police their kids then to allow teachers the personal right to carry at their workplace. This kind of implies a lot of interesting things about where our society has gone for some people, and where it could go.
> 
> Paul


 
I think its better to have the SRO, as the teacher can't act on criminal offenses like a LEO could.  Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying Paul. 

Mike


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 11, 2006)

The problem with SRO's (which I think is a great idea) is the same of policemen everywhere.  They can't be everywhere at once.

Jeff


----------



## Carol (Sep 11, 2006)

MJS said:


> I think its better to have the SRO, as the teacher can't act on criminal offenses like a LEO could. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying Paul.
> 
> Mike


 
I get what Paul is saying.  He seems concerned that society is going towards an idea where firearms will be legislated to the point where seemingly LEO's are allowed to carry.  

Which, IMO, is a fair point.  While tactical skills are an important part of decision making, so are analytical skills and good judgement.  Most LEO's and armed guards have a high school education.  Most teachers have Bachelor's or Master's degrees.  Teachers and professors are our most educated work force. 

From what I've read about insurance data...folks with a bachelor's degree (or higher) are associated with many lower acutarial risks.  Overall, teachers strike me as a class of people that would be excellent at handling a firearm responsibly...especially the teachers that already have done a good amount of range time.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 11, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Kacey, please don't take this as an attack, but could you explain your thoughts on this? Just seeing a gun is a traumatic experience?


 
I'll let her explain her point of view, but a lot of comments like those, and comment's like "I don't like the image that guns have in an environment that is supposed to be safe like a school," go back to my point regarding anthropomophicizing inanimate objetcs, and giving guns 'evil' charactaristics. This can be quite dangerous on a societal level.



> I think its better to have the SRO, as the teacher can't act on criminal offenses like a LEO could. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying Paul.


 
I'm not saying that an SRO is a bad thing; in fact, I agree with the notion of at least having a liason officer as a positive thing, but more so for building community relations and a positive outlook towards police then for protective or policing purposes.

What I am saying is that the notion that our society is more comfortable having an armed officer in the schools to police and protect our kids then allowing individual law abiding citizens the right to carry concealed in the school implies quite a bit about our culture and the direction we have gone.

To spell it out, it implies that our society is more comfortable giving up rights of self-protection to a government worker, so long as we are no longer responsible for our own defense if something were to happened.

This in turn implies a society that is willing to give up individual rights to a government, just as long as that government keeps us "safe."

It points to a society that is willing to give up personal rights, and even take away rights of another in order to shirk personal responsibility and maintain an illusion.

That illusion, my friends, is the illusion of safety. That is all an SRO really represents, for most people, is the illusion of safety.

The unfortunate thing about this illusion is that because it isn't actually real, as is often proven when the illusion collides with the objective format, it becomes a slippery slope to a police state where the illusion is that we have a safe and free and civilized society, but where not only is no one "safe" but no one is "free." 

It unfortunatily implies a society that is no longer "American."


----------



## Kacey (Sep 11, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> I was looking through the posts on this thread again and this line really stood out.
> 
> Kacey, please don't take this as an attack, but could you explain your thoughts on this?  Just seeing a gun is a traumatic experience?
> 
> ...



Sorry, I should have been more complete - too many kids have seen guns _used_ at home or in their neighborhoods; once an 8 year-old asks you to watch her walk home in case Daddy tries to shoot Mommy through the window again (and the apartment building was literally at the end of the school parking lot, and she was afraid to leave the school lot, where she considered herself safe), it kind of changes your perspective.  School is the only place many of my students feel safe, because there are guns and knives and other violence all over the place - as much as possible, I would prefer to keep those experiences out of the school, as children learn better when they feel safe.



Tulisan said:


> I'll let her explain her point of view, but a lot of comments like those, and comment's like "I don't like the image that guns have in an environment that is supposed to be safe like a school," go back to my point regarding anthropomophicizing inanimate objetcs, and giving guns 'evil' charactaristics. This can be quite dangerous on a societal level.



See above.  It has nothing to do with "seeing" guns being evil, but with seeing guns used in anger that I object to; as I said to Jeff, too many of my students only see guns that way, and see no other use for them.  Now, when one of my former students brought me a picture of his hunting rifle, along with some venison jerky his father make from a deer he shot - no problem.  For that student, seeing a gun has a different meaning than the little girl I mentioned.  Too many of my students, however, have had experiences with guns closer to hers than his, and I see no reason to give them any reason to think it could happen at school.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 11, 2006)

> Sorry, I should have been more complete - too many kids have seen guns used at home or in their neighborhoods; once an 8 year-old asks you to watch her walk home in case Daddy tries to shoot Mommy through the window again (and the apartment building was literally at the end of the school parking lot, and she was afraid to leave the school lot, where she considered herself safe), it kind of changes your perspective. School is the only place many of my students feel safe, because there are guns and knives and other violence all over the place - as much as possible, I would prefer to keep those experiences out of the school, as children learn better when they feel safe.




Then wouldn't seeing guns handled by responsible people be a good influence?
Plus, keep in mind, we aren't talking about teachers carrying openly, but concealed.  If done correctly, the students wouldn't know which, if any, of the staff were armed.

Jeff


----------



## Kacey (Sep 11, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> Then wouldn't seeing guns handled by responsible people be a good influence?



I don't think guns have any place in school.  The schools are already teaching way too many things that are the province of the parents and/or the community - about drugs, gangs, sex, even bicycle safety - and somewhere in here the parents need to step in and raise their children, instead of expecting us to do so.  The only exception I could see would be if the activity requires the student to use a gun and teaches proper gun safety - ROTC, for example.



JeffJ said:


> Plus, keep in mind, we aren't talking about teachers carrying openly, but concealed.  If done correctly, the students wouldn't know which, if any, of the staff were armed.
> 
> Jeff



If they're concealed, then how can they be an example?  I'm not trying to be difficult here - I'm finding a paradox that I can't resolve:  one of your reasons for wanting to allow teachers to carry is so they can set an example for safe carry... but only concealed carry would be allowed, so the students would never see the gun, to learn from the example.  I don't see how it can work both ways.

And again - teachers should not need guns in school, and students should not need to wonder which teachers might be carrying them.  It is a safety issue.  There comes a point when a gun (or any other weapon) is no longer a deterrent; it becomes a challenge - to obtain (secretly or openly) and to use, as well as causing people to feel they _need_ a gun because someone else _might_ have one.  Also, unlike knives, guns kill from a distance, and "shoot to wound" is a fallacy - guns exist to kill things (people or animals) and for no other purpose.  They have no place in schools, in my opinion.  Your opinion is different, and I respect that - but I will fight hard against any legislation that would allow CCW into schools, with anyone but police officers - and their weapons aren't concealed anyway; they're visibly in the belt holster.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 11, 2006)

Sorry about the confusion, I was not trying to say concealed and an example, I was just going from two different points.

I feel in a free society that a law abiding citizen should be able to have the means to defend him/herself anywhere they might find themselves.  The police cannot be depended on for our protection.  They might want too, but there are just not enough of them to be able to do so.

I don't think just because a place is filled with younger members of our society is reason enough to be disarmed.

I respect your opinions Kacey, and you for that matter.  I just don't agree with them.

Jeff


----------



## Kacey (Sep 11, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> I respect your opinions Kacey, and you for that matter.  I just don't agree with them.
> 
> Jeff



Likewise - I respect your opinion; I disagree with it.

From The American President:



> You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.



By no means do your words make my blood boil - I'm just glad I live in a country where such discussions can take place without fear of repercussions.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 11, 2006)

> By no means do your words make my blood boil - I'm just glad I live in a country where such discussions can take place without fear of repercussions



Now that is something we agree on.

Jeff


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 11, 2006)

> Your opinion is different, and I respect that - but I will fight hard against any legislation that would allow CCW into schools, with anyone but police officers - and their weapons aren't concealed anyway; they're visibly in the belt holster.


 
Kacey, I am going to address you directly on this. You've made yourself an easy target with your posts, and since we are not on school property, I can take the shot (lol  ). But seriously, thanks for putting your opinion out there. I would guess that the majority of the public probably shares your opinion, even though I strongly disagree and see some major problems with it.

There are a lot of things I could touch on here regarding your point of view, but I will focus on the extremely pathological part. You're willing to forego your ability to defend yourself adequately against an armed assailant. You're willing to buy into the illusion of safety that 1 armed officer on duty brings to your school. You're basically comfortable in giving up your rights to an armed officer and the government, so long as the illusion of safety is adequately maintained. All of this is fine, somewhat understandable, and your right to do so. Yet you will passionately fight to make sure that others have to subscribe to your decision to be powerless as well?

That's the part that is pathological. Due to your emotions, fear, and negative perceptions of guns (all things that you might deny, but the proof is in the logical holes in your emotionally based point of view), you will be adamant to impose your insecurities on others. This is to level the playing field, so to speak. It is like the agoraphobic mother who won't let her child play outside. Now, I don't think you, or others with this argument, are bad people as I think the intentions are good in that you believe your doing the right thing for our kids. I commend that part, even if it doesn't make it any less pathological.

Just think about it.

Paul


----------



## MJS (Sep 11, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> I'm not saying that an SRO is a bad thing; in fact, I agree with the notion of at least having a liason officer as a positive thing, but more so for building community relations and a positive outlook towards police then for protective or policing purposes.
> 
> What I am saying is that the notion that our society is more comfortable having an armed officer in the schools to police and protect our kids then allowing individual law abiding citizens the right to carry concealed in the school implies quite a bit about our culture and the direction we have gone.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Paul,

First, I'll start off by saying that I dont want anyone to think that I'm anti-gun, because that is not the case.  I see nothing wrong with people owning a gun, as long as they're responsible about it.  

As for the question at hand, again, if the school system wants to give the ok to teachers, that cool, as long as they've been trained properly to use it.  I do feel though that when certain issues arise, they're best left, IMO, to a LEO, rather than a teacher to deal with.  

Just my .02.

Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 12, 2006)

MJS said:


> Hi Paul,
> 
> First, I'll start off by saying that I dont want anyone to think that I'm anti-gun, because that is not the case. I see nothing wrong with people owning a gun, as long as they're responsible about it.
> 
> ...


 
Right; not trying to paint you as anti gun, Mike, as I know that you're not.  My post was just to further explain what I was getting at, in case I was being too vague for some.

As to your point about LE; I think we agree.

It is a matter of understanding of what Law Enforcement is for, and what it is not for, and where the personal responsibilities lie.

The job of Law Enforcement, as the name implies, is to enforce the law. They catch the bad guys, thus making our society a safer place to live.

The confusion is when people mistakenly believe that law enforcement is there to protect the individual. Yes, they "protect in serve" society by catching the bad guys. But they are not obligated too "protect and serve" society by coming to the rescue of individuals. This is an important distinction, as was specifically made by the Supreme Court. This is because LE CAN'T be everywhere at all times to prevent crime and violence from happening to people.

So, if LE isn't there to protect the individual, then who is? This is where personal responsibility lies. People are supposed to be personally responsible for their own self-defense, their family's, and the well being of their community. This is why we have the rights to make a citizen's arrest if there is a felony in progress, as well the rights to defend ourselves and others if a crime of violence is in progress. No one has to wait for the cops to arrive to stop someone from hurting another.

So, I agree. Law Enforcement should do what they do best, which is enforce the law and catch the bad guys. Teachers should do what they do best, and that is teach and be a role model to our children. Yet, all individuals need to do their part when it comes to homeland security. Some may chose to carry a firearm to do this, and many will not. Yet, as I have mentioned, preventing concealed carry in places or circumstances inhibits these personal responsibilities and choices.

Paul


----------



## Drac (Sep 12, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Kind of a sidebar:
> 
> I find it real interesting that many people would rather have an armed officer in the schools to police their kids then to allow teachers the personal right to carry at their workplace


 
I think its a training issue...Rookie cops go through a rigerous firearm program during their academy BEFORE they are allowed to carry and afterward there are monthly qulifications as well as on going training that is specfically geared toward firearm safety...No CCW program can match it...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 12, 2006)

Drac said:


> I think its a training issue...Rookie cops go through a rigerous firearm program during their academy BEFORE they are allowed to carry and afterward there are monthly qulifications as well as on going training that is specfically geared toward firearm safety...No CCW program can match it...


 
It certainly does come down to training and level of trust.


----------



## MJS (Sep 12, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Right; not trying to paint you as anti gun, Mike, as I know that you're not.  My post was just to further explain what I was getting at, in case I was being too vague for some.
> 
> As to your point about LE; I think we agree.
> 
> ...


 
Paul,

Thanks for your reply!:ultracool   Now, I have not read through every post here, so forgive me if this was already discussed, but in your opinion, aside from something on the level of Columbine, what are the other pros to having teachers carrying a firearm?  A simple fistfight, I'd imagine, would not be just cause to 'draw down' on a student to get them to stop fighting.  In a school setting, if the teachers are going to carry weapons, I'd think that they'd also have some sort of use of force policy to follow.

Thoughts?

Mike


----------



## MJS (Sep 12, 2006)

Drac said:


> I think its a training issue...Rookie cops go through a rigerous firearm program during their academy BEFORE they are allowed to carry and afterward there are monthly qulifications as well as on going training that is specfically geared toward firearm safety...No CCW program can match it...


 
Yes, thats where I was going in my other posts.  Would the training course for teachers be on the level as a LEO?  Are they going to be recertified on a regular basis?

Mike


----------



## Drac (Sep 12, 2006)

MJS said:


> Would the training course for teachers be on the level as a LEO? Are they going to be recertified on a regular basis?Mike


 
I don't think so..We shot everyday for one solid month just to meet the basic requirments..Then we MUST quaify monthly after that..Not to mention that the State constantly come up with approved drills that are incorporated into that we must pass..When the hell are teachers going to find the time???...Between grading papers and planning lessons not to mention parent teacher meetings..Isn't their job hard enough???


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 12, 2006)

Drac said:


> I don't think so..We shot everyday for one solid month just to meet the basic requirments..Then we MUST quaify monthly after that..Not to mention that the State constantly come up with approved drills that are incorporated into that we must pass..When the hell are teachers going to find the time???...Between grading papers and planning lessons not to mention parent teacher meetings..Isn't their job hard enough???


That's pretty good.  I know the training and requal schedule isn't nearly as intensive here as that.  A lot of the policemen around here I wouldn't trust to shoot their way out of a wet paper bag, with a few exceptions of course.

Jeff


----------



## Drac (Sep 12, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> That's pretty good. I know the training and requal schedule isn't nearly as intensive here as that. A lot of the policemen around here I wouldn't trust to shoot their way out of a wet paper bag, with a few exceptions of course
> 
> Jeff


 
Same up here Jeff...


----------



## Grenadier (Sep 12, 2006)

On a side note, the firearms requirements for law enforcement agencies depend from one department to another. 

Some departments insist on a thorough training regimen, and that they must qualify yearly.  

Others (no joking) have requirements so weak, that if you can hit the standard man-sized silhouette target from 7 yards away with 10 rounds, that you're good to go.  

Safety training also strongly varies.  As JeffJ stated, there are unfortunately a good number of officers who do not practice safety, such as keeping their fingers in the trigger guard while reholstering, and this can even be seen at the federal level.


----------



## Drac (Sep 12, 2006)

That's just plain *SCARY*


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 12, 2006)

> such as keeping their fingers in the trigger guard while reholstering, and this can even be seen at the federal level


.


I saw a local deputy down in KY do that once.  Luckily he didn't hurt himself or anyone else.

Very scary

Jeff


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 12, 2006)

Drac said:


> I think its a training issue...Rookie cops go through a rigerous firearm program during their academy BEFORE they are allowed to carry and afterward there are monthly qulifications as well as on going training that is specfically geared toward firearm safety...No CCW program can match it...


 
Once again, it is the illusion of being better trained that makes people more comfortable.

In actuality, most cops are not good shooters. This is demonstrated by the national average hit rates for police in gun encounters is well under 20% year after year. This means that in gun encounters, over 80% are not hitting what they are aiming at. This is due to lack of training, and inadequate training practices. On the other side, many civilians take shooting courses well beyond the scope of CPL classes. Most of your well known shooting schools (blackwater, frontsite, etc.) are substantially economically supported by private citizen dollars, to give an example. Civilians do this because they enjoy it, yet their hobby makes them better shooters then someone with just the CPL/CCW class or LE.

Now, it is important to mention that some academies and departments (possibly yours, and California Highways Patrol for example) have better standards for firearms training, and consequently have far better averages in the national numbers.

Keep in mind also, that many SRO's (I am inclined to say most because of what I've seen, but I don't have hard data to prove it) aren't academy trained officers; but are basically armed security guards.

What this all adds up too is that it isn't as black and white as "the guy with the uniform is the better trained shooter, so he should be allowed to carry in schools while others not." It depends on the individual. But, the uniform gives people the ILLUSION that a well trained person is there to keep them safe.



> Now, I have not read through every post here, so forgive me if this was already discussed, but in your opinion, aside from something on the level of Columbine, what are the other pros to having teachers carrying a firearm? A simple fistfight, I'd imagine, would not be just cause to 'draw down' on a student to get them to stop fighting. In a school setting, if the teachers are going to carry weapons, I'd think that they'd also have some sort of use of force policy to follow.


 
The use of force policy would be the same as any armed person in a school, and would be taught in every CCW/CPL class if there were special considerations to make in a school.

I think that everyone needs to understand that it isn't about benefits or about training, it is about rights. Do we allow our citizens the inalienable right to defend themselves and their environment, or don't we? You lay out the standards and responsibilities, as we do in a CPL/CCW class, and we let the individual decide how much training they need to uphold their responsibilities, and whether or not it is beneficial to carry in different environments or not. Keep in mind that many CCW holding teachers would decide that it isn't beneficial to carry in school even if the law allowed it.

The point is that it should be up to the individual to decide, not the law.

Now, as to benefits besides prevention of another Columbine or terrorist attack on the school? This again will vary per individual circumstance, and should be up to them to decide. Someone might live in a rough neighborhood or work in a rough area, and might opt to carry due to their commute to and from work, for example. A major benefit that I could see would be that it would demonstrate to children and other adults (who wouldn't "see" the weapon every day as it would be concealed, but who might know that some teachers carry from time to time) how responsible people carry firearms. This might help dispel unbalanced fears and provide a more appropriate view, especially for that child who has had bad experiences with firearms at home. Most importantly, this would help children to grow up with the ideal of being personally responsible for themselves and their environment; very much unlike the ideals we have now where we shirk responsibilities in favor of the illusion that someone else will take care of things (in this case, the SRO).

We need to realize (CPL/CCW holders and non-carriers alike) that carrying a weapon is a huge responsibility, as is the willingness to protect your environment should something threatening occur. It isn't just something that rootin-tootin' bad asses do, as many portray the image. It is something that means you're willing to possibly sacrifice yourself for others, and it means your willing to incur huge liability to yourself to do so. It is a decision that should not only be not taken lightly, but should be respected more then it is.

Paul


----------



## arnisandyz (Sep 12, 2006)

Not sure where I stand on this. Concerning CCW in general, I think there are many people that should NOT be carrying. I personally know (as I am sure many of you know) individuals who have thier CCW that have questionable gun handling skills. I know here in Florida, they'll give a CCW to just about anybody and the CCW minium required "class" is a joke. Ad to that factor the fact that some of these untrained unskilled armed people will be in close contact to alot of kids...I just don't know. 

I would hope if faculty is allowed to carry in public schools, strickter guidelines on CCW training supplimented by additional combative/use of force training would be required.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 12, 2006)

arnisandyz said:


> Not sure where I stand on this. Concerning CCW in general, I think there are many people that should NOT be carrying. I personally know (as I am sure many of you know) individuals who have thier CCW that have questionable gun handling skills. I know here in Florida, they'll give a CCW to just about anybody and the CCW minium required "class" is a joke. Ad to that factor the fact that some of these untrained unskilled armed people will be in close contact to alot of kids...I just don't know.
> 
> I would hope if faculty is allowed to carry in public schools, strickter guidelines on CCW training supplimented by additional combative/use of force training would be required.


 
I know of several who should not be carrying either.  With them it is not their skills but more their immaturity and ability to control their anger.  

Strict background checks, mental stability checks as well as *serious* and *substantial training* are all something that should be taken into account when issueing a CCW/CPL.  

There are many, many good people who have CCW/CPL's in the United States. (probably 99% are really great people)  However there are a few who should never be allowed to carry.  Their mental instability and anger management issues are simply not checked well during the process.

I'm all for CCW/CPL permits.  I think they are *great*.  I do think the training should be more thorough and the background checks better.  

In Michigan at least the current laws regarding where you can and cannot carry them seem adequate to me.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 12, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Kacey, I am going to address you directly on this. You've made yourself an easy target with your posts, and since we are not on school property, I can take the shot (lol  ). But seriously, thanks for putting your opinion out there. I would guess that the majority of the public probably shares your opinion, even though I strongly disagree and see some major problems with it.
> 
> There are a lot of things I could touch on here regarding your point of view, but I will focus on the extremely pathological part. You're willing to forego your ability to defend yourself adequately against an armed assailant. You're willing to buy into the illusion of safety that 1 armed officer on duty brings to your school. You're basically comfortable in giving up your rights to an armed officer and the government, so long as the illusion of safety is adequately maintained. All of this is fine, somewhat understandable, and your right to do so. Yet you will passionately fight to make sure that others have to subscribe to your decision to be powerless as well?
> 
> ...



Paul, you're welcome to think my opinion is pathological if you want - but I've been teaching for 13 years, mostly in low-income, high crime areas - and it's just never come up.  I have never needed to defend myself against a student, a staff member, a parent, or anyone else who might be on the school grounds.  The only time my TKD training has ever been put to direct use is in breaking up fights - and even that's only happened twice.  As I said previously, the incidence of school violence is dropping, except for bullying, which is being recognized as a gateway behavior and stopped sooner and sooner; that's why it's been going up and other things are going down; it's being recognized, and dealt with, sooner - so that the higher levels of violence are not happening.  I simply don't see a need to allow guns into schools.


----------



## Drac (Sep 12, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I know of several who should not be carrying either. With them it is not their skills but more their immaturity and ability to control their anger.
> 
> Strict background checks, mental stability checks as well as *serious* and *substantial training* are all something that should be taken into account when issueing a CCW/CPL.
> 
> There are many, many good people who have CCW/CPL's in the United States. (probably 99% are really great people) However there are a few who should never be allowed to carry


 
Did you hit the nail on the head...Here in Ohio you gotta be a cop ( active or retired) to be an SRO...Officers are assigned to that detail by their department...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 12, 2006)

Drac said:


> Did you hit the nail on the head...Here in Ohio you gotta be a cop ( active or retired) to be an SRO...Officers are assigned to that detail by their department...


 
All of the SRO officers that I know are employed by police departments here in Michigan as well.


----------



## Drac (Sep 12, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> All of the SRO officers that I know are employed by police departments here in Michigan as well.


 
Based on some of the rent-a-cop companies that I've seen I wanna see a cop protecting my kids school...


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 12, 2006)

All the SRO's I've come in contact with are members of the local police or sheriffs dept.'s here.


----------



## Drac (Sep 12, 2006)

JeffJ said:


> All the SRO's I've come in contact with are members of the local police or sheriffs dept.'s here.


'

It makes the most sense..If the sheet ever hits the fan backup and EMS services are just a radio call away...


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 12, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> All of the SRO officers that I know are employed by police departments here in Michigan as well.


 
In Michigan, the usual protocal is to have a police laison officer assigned to a district, and security personel assigned to each school (mainly the high schools). The security personels aren't supposed to be armed, though, and the laison officer obviously is. However, I know of more then one situation where SRO in Detroit carry concealed anyway, even though the law does not permit it.

It is quite screwed up.

But like I said, I don't have any hard data to back it up, it was just my perception that most SRO's aren't LE certified. You guys are probably right, though, in that it is a certified officer who is armed (legally; excluding Detroit), and not the uncertified SRO's.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 12, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Paul, you're welcome to think my opinion is pathological if you want - but I've been teaching for 13 years, mostly in low-income, high crime areas - and it's just never come up. I have never needed to defend myself against a student, a staff member, a parent, or anyone else who might be on the school grounds. The only time my TKD training has ever been put to direct use is in breaking up fights - and even that's only happened twice. As I said previously, the incidence of school violence is dropping, except for bullying, which is being recognized as a gateway behavior and stopped sooner and sooner; that's why it's been going up and other things are going down; it's being recognized, and dealt with, sooner - so that the higher levels of violence are not happening. I simply don't see a need to allow guns into schools.


 
I do respect your point of view, and from your standpoint you are right in a lot of ways. The need doesn't often arise where one would need a firearm, particularly in the school. The teaching and social working profession has also grown very much over the years, and has been great in taking preventative measures that have been responsible for the recent decrease in school violence. Your profession needs to be credited for that. These preventative measures are much more important then toting around a firearm in every circumstance.

But, it is not about need or want, it is about rights. The fact that you, and others, would passionatily fight to take those away due to an illusionary perception is the part that in my view is pathological.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 12, 2006)

arnisandyz said:


> Not sure where I stand on this. Concerning CCW in general, I think there are many people that should NOT be carrying. I personally know (as I am sure many of you know) individuals who have thier CCW that have questionable gun handling skills. I know here in Florida, they'll give a CCW to just about anybody and the CCW minium required "class" is a joke. Ad to that factor the fact that some of these untrained unskilled armed people will be in close contact to alot of kids...I just don't know.
> 
> I would hope if faculty is allowed to carry in public schools, strickter guidelines on CCW training supplimented by additional combative/use of force training would be required.


 
The fact that their hasn't been an epidemic in Florida of erronious shootings points to the fact that skill level doesn't need to be State mandated. People simple need to be held responible for their actions. As in Law Enforcement circles, you will always have people who "shouldn't carry," people who are highly skilled, and people in between.

It's not about skill, it's about rights.


----------



## Drac (Sep 12, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> People simple need to be held responible for their actions.


 
Yes, 100% correct..The public also needs to QUIT making excuses for those that break the law...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 12, 2006)

Drac said:


> Yes, 100% correct..The public also needs to QUIT making excuses for those that break the law...


 
How true is that statement!


----------



## Kacey (Sep 12, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> I do respect your point of view, and from your standpoint you are right in a lot of ways. The need doesn't often arise where one would need a firearm, particularly in the school. The teaching and social working profession has also grown very much over the years, and has been great in taking preventative measures that have been responsible for the recent decrease in school violence. Your profession needs to be credited for that. These preventative measures are much more important then toting around a firearm in every circumstance.
> 
> But, it is not about need or want, it is about rights. The fact that you, and others, would passionatily fight to take those away due to an illusionary perception is the part that in my view is pathological.



You have your opinion, and I have mine; however I would appreciate if you would stop using the word "pathological"; as a psychologist in training, I more commonly use it in a psychological sense, which implies illness.  I do not think that our difference of opinion extends that far.

As has been discussed in many other threads, those who are law-abiding are often made to suffer because of laws passed with the intention to regulate criminals.  This issue is another instance of the law-abiding having to pay for the behavior of criminals.  This is, at its root, the reason for gun laws, and many other types of laws that restrict the rights of citizens - everything from drug/alcohol/tobacco laws to gun laws to driving laws to decency laws, and many more.  This is, in my mind, a much bigger issue than the one being discussed. 

In addition, I see other concerns for creating laws that allow concealed carry in schools.  Who would they apply to?  Teachers?  Administrators?  Visiting specialists?  Clerical staff?  Custodians?  What about parents?  Staff from other schools?  What age limit (of the students, I mean) - should such laws be limited to schools with students over a certain age, both to limit the risk of accident if a younger child should find a gun, and because it's less likely a younger child will bring a gun to school to use (there are multiple instances of children finding a gun in the house and bringing it in for show and tell)?  This issue is not nearly as simple as it may appear on the surface.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 12, 2006)

Kacey said:


> You have your opinion, and I have mine; however I would appreciate if you would stop using the word "pathological"; as a psychologist in training, I more commonly use it in a psychological sense, which implies illness. I do not think that our difference of opinion extends that far.


 
First, I need to state here that I am not inferring that you or anyone who agrees with your opinion is psychologically ill, nor would I ever make a determination or inference like that on an internet forum. So, I apologize if that was what you deduced from my statements.

But the argument or viewpoint you propose is "pathological" in the sense that passionately wanting the same powerlessness that one has chosen to be enforced on others with delusional and illogical reasoning to support the desire is both maladaptive, extreme, and if implemented (as it is today) a marked deviation giving rise to social ills. A simple term for that would be "pathological". I can't think of a better term for the phenomenon, so I'll just try to use it sparingly and replace it when I can if it bothers you.

But it doesn't matter much anymore in that I really don't have much else to say. I have stated my viewpoint, and you or others can either agree or disagree. I don't have much else to add, unless something particular comes up or unless I am addressed directly.

Thanks again for the discussion.



Paul


----------



## Kacey (Sep 12, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> First, I need to state here that I am not inferring that you or anyone who agrees with your opinion is psychologically ill, nor would I ever make a determination or inference like that on an internet forum. So, I apologize if that was what you deduced from my statements.



Thank you.  For your information and edification, here is the definition of "pathological" according to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:	*path·o·log·i·cal*


Pronunciation:	"pa-th&-'lä-ji-k&l
Variant(s):	_also _ *path·o·log·ic*


 /-jik/
Function:	_adjective_
*1* *:* of or relating to pathology
*2* *:* altered or caused by disease; _also_ *:* indicative of disease
*3* *:* being such to a degree that is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal   <a _pathological_ liar>   <_pathological_ fear> 
- *path·o·log·i·cal·ly*


  /-ji-k(&-)lE/ _adverb_



Tulisan said:


> But the argument or viewpoint you propose is "pathological" in the sense that passionately wanting the same powerlessness that one has chosen to be enforced on others with delusional and illogical reasoning to support the desire is both maladaptive, extreme, and if implemented (as it is today) a marked deviation giving rise to social ills. A simple term for that would be "pathological". I can't think of a better term for the phenomenon, so I'll just try to use it sparingly and replace it when I can if it bothers you.



I appreciate that you say that you are not using pathological in the sense given above; however, you then go on to give a definition remarkably like the one I objected to - that is, you are implying (and, to a certain extent, stating outright) that because I do not agree with you I am suffering from a psychological illness.  Nor do I feel that my opinion - which you yourself stated is widely held - is "a marked deviation giving rise to social ills" - something I apply to people who commit sex crimes against children, not people who disagree about concealed carry laws and their application to schools.  Rather, I find your statement that my opinion is of that nature offensive.

In addition, I do not particularly appreciate being called delusional because I disagree with something you passionately believe in.  Nor do I find my opinion to be maladaptive; rather, I find the increase in the use of guns maladaptive for society as a whole.  Rather than increase the availability of guns, and thus increase the risk they will be used (appropriately or otherwise) I would rather see the existing laws properly enforced - by law enforcement officers, rather than citizens who take the law into their own hands due to lack of enforcement.  Perhaps then the entire issue will become moot.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 12, 2006)

Not to jump into the middle of a private "spat," but...


Kacey said:


> In addition, I do not particularly appreciate being called delusional because I disagree with something you passionately believe in. Nor do I find my opinion to be maladaptive; rather, *I find the increase in the use of guns maladaptive for society as a whole.*


Um...why?



Kacey said:


> *Rather than increase the availability of guns, and thus increase the risk they will be used (appropriately or otherwise)...*


You do realize that there is no indication that an area with more guns or less-restrictive gun laws is more "at risk" for crimes. In fact the reverse is true. Areas with higher rates of legal gun ownership tend to have less crime than areas that are more restrictive. 
And, just out of curiosity, what is the problem with appropriate uses of firearms? To me, every time a firearm is used appropriately (in the context of a defensive situation), it means a serious crime was prevented.
Not really the topic under discussion but I wanted to point this out.



Kacey said:


> I would rather see the existing laws properly enforced - by law enforcement officers, rather than citizens who take the law into their own hands due to lack of enforcement. Perhaps then the entire issue will become moot.


What laws are you talking about? Civilians do not carry weapons to "enforce the law." They carry them to protect themselves and other innocents against those who would seek to harm them. As has been stated several times in this thread, by several people: The police cannot be everywhere at once. Furthermore, law-enforcement seldom manages to function as a proactive body (to prevent crime). In most cases, they're a reactive body. In other words, they don't usually show up 'till the smoke clears. Explain to me how "enforcing existing laws" is going to prevent the types of situations that CCW'ers prepare for by carrying a weapon.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 12, 2006)

Kacey,

Since you are a teacher, as you have told us all repeatedly, you would most likely know that words have various definitions. In psychology, "pathology" specifically refers to disease. "Pathological" doesn't have to refer to disease, however, in other contexts. That is not how I am using the term, as I have explicitly stated. Note, your online dictionary only reference "disease" in the #2 definition only out of 3 possibilities; and I am sure if you look up "pathology" you will find more variants not applying specifically to disease. 

Since I have explicitly stated what I mean and that I am not inferring that you or anyone else here is psychologically diseased, you are at this point choosing to misinterpret what I am saying so that you can be offended by it. That, Kacey, is YOUR PROBLEM and not anyone else's, because that is what you have chosen to do.

As far as the viewpoint goes:

You are expressing a specific socio-cultural viewpoint that is in my view a maladaptive response based on illusions and emotions rather then objective data and logical reasoning; and therefore is delusional, among other things.

I am not calling you names because you don't agree with me; but again, if you choose to see it that way then that is YOUR PROBLEM and no one else's, because I am not calling you names or firing shots at you.

Furthermore, the implementation of the viewpoint is a "marked deviation giving rise to social ills." Not "deviant" in the sexually ill sense as you have once again CHOSEN TO INTERPRET the statement, but "deviation" as in "deviating" from a more beneficial ideology. And you can reread my statements in previous posts on this thread about personal responsibility if you want to better understand the social ills that such an ideology creates.

Listen, when I assess your argument, I am not personally attacking you. That fact that you have chosen to misinterpret what I have said so that you can act as though you have been attacked to justify your feelings of frustration and offense is inappropriate.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 13, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Since you are a teacher, as you have told us all repeatedly, you would most likely know that words have various definitions. In psychology, "pathology" specifically refers to disease. "Pathological" doesn't have to refer to disease, however, in other contexts. That is not how I am using the term, as I have explicitly stated. Note, your online dictionary only reference "disease" in the #2 definition only out of 3 possibilities; and I am sure if you look up "pathology" you will find more variants not applying specifically to disease.





> Since I have explicitly stated what I mean and that I am not inferring that you or anyone else here is psychologically diseased, you are at this point choosing to misinterpret what I am saying so that you can be offended by it. That, Kacey, is YOUR PROBLEM and not anyone else's, because that is what you have chosen to do.



But don't you think that your chosen term of the word "pathological" in this case when it's not exactly necessary _could be_ construed as insulting, demeaning and manipulative of the conversation to artificially strengthen your argument?

That said, and given that I like my gun rights just as much as the next mook, how much of the "necessity for self-protection" in the venue of public schools do you think is hype (you know, the current massive American Fear Campaign) and how much do you REALLY think we need this kind of protection?


----------



## Grenadier (Sep 13, 2006)

Kacey said:


> I find the increase in the use of guns maladaptive for society as a whole.


 
The availablilty of lawfully owned firearms has nothing to do with crime rates.  One could look at two particular cases, where the countries of Japan and Jamaica forbid lawful ownership of firearms, and yet, one country has very little firearms crime, and the other one has one of the world's highest violent crime rate.  

The forbiddance of firearms has done absolutely nothing to stop criminals in Jamaica from having quite an arsenal, nor has it stopped the Chicago area gangbangers from being armed, etc.  

The bottom line is: it's not a firearms ownership issue.  It's a cultural one. 




> Rather than increase the availability of guns, and thus increase the risk they will be used (appropriately or otherwise)


 
Once again, though, many people tend to overlook the fact that those who lawfully own firearms are not going to be the types to misuse them.  To try to stop the availability of guns would be the same as trying to stop the availability of lawfully prescribed pain killers, just because a bunch of heroin junkies (who obtained their illegal drugs illegally) present a problem.  



> I would rather see the existing laws properly enforced - by law enforcement officers, rather than citizens who take the law into their own hands due to lack of enforcement. Perhaps then the entire issue will become moot.


 
It never will be a moot issue.  The courts of the land have already repeatedly stated, that the police are not obliged ot protect any particular individual.  

One need only look at the case of *Warren v D.C.* to see that there are going to be times where the police cannot protect you, and that they are not responsible to do so.  

Even when they do come, it takes at least several minutes to get to the site, and during that time, an assailant can do quite a bit of damage.  One need only look at the *Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics -- 1990 (1991):257, *to see a rather chilling statistic, that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour.

In those cases, what's the alternative?  I'd much rather have the ability to stop a menace the likes of Eric Klebold and Dylan Harris, or a Charles Whitman, than to be stuck up a certain stinking creek without a paddle.  Whether or not I have a firearm at my access has not changed who I am, nor does the firearm have any sort of sentience.


----------



## Ceicei (Sep 13, 2006)

When Utah passed the law that allowed those with CCW permits to carry onto public school properties, there had been dire predictions that this would cause problems.  Thus far, no problems have happened as a result of passing the law.

The school administrators still resist this though.  The number of teachers who do carry remain unknown.  However, some teachers who are discovered to have guns with them for whatever reason, have eventually had to stop teaching.  I am guessing that even with the law in place, the number of teachers carrying is very low.

There are more parents, however, who do carry them when they come to drop off or pick up their children or come in for school activities.  They, too, carry their weapons concealed as is required by their carry permits.  

I know of them because they are also within my circle of friends and others are seen at shooting ranges for practice.  If done properly, people who don't know this cannot tell who is carrying and who isn't.

A perception of safety?  I don't know.  What is known, however, is if something bad does go down, there will probably be someone somewhere who does have a CCW permit, at least here in Utah.   According to probability, they (the CCW holders) are more likely to be on the scene already than an officer who has to be called during/after the fact.

- Ceicei


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 13, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> But don't you think that your chosen term of the word "pathological" in this case when it's not exactly necessary _could be_ construed as insulting, demeaning and manipulative of the conversation to artificially strengthen your argument?


 
Yes, it could be seen that way. But I explained that I am not using the term to imply that people with Kacey's view are psychologically ill. I explained that I am assessing the point of view, not the person. If she doesn't accept my explaination and still chooses to be offended, then at that point it isn't my responibility to try to change that.

Also, keep in mind that we are talking about a socio-cultural viewpoint. There is a very large segment of theoretical psychology that attends to societal viewpoints and "ills." Many personalities have dedicated substancial portions of their study too societal assessments. You can start with Jung and his work on the collective conscious, and you can look at people like Szasz, Fromm, Erickson, May, and so on for different perspectives of "societal perspectives and pathologies." 

My point is that when the majority of a society or collective consiousness
takes on a particular thought, belief, or behavior pattern that leads to social ills, and that is maladaptive, extreme, and/or deviating from a more beneficial option, then the correct term for that is "pathology." It is really the most appropriate term to use.

And, too avoid the use of the appropriate term, I believe that the viewpoint that Kacey proposess is and leads too societal problems for the reasons that I explained in previous posts on this thread. I can rexplain what I mean if anyone would like me too.



> That said, and given that I like my gun rights just as much as the next mook, how much of the "necessity for self-protection" in the venue of public schools do you think is hype (you know, the current massive American Fear Campaign) and how much do you REALLY think we need this kind of protection?


 
I basically covered this, so I'll just quote myself...

_I do respect your point of view, and from your standpoint you are right in a lot of ways. *The need doesn't often arise where one would need a firearm, particularly in the school.* The teaching and social working profession has also grown very much over the years, and has been great in taking preventative measures that have been responsible for the recent decrease in school violence. Your profession needs to be credited for that. These preventative measures are much more important then toting around a firearm in every circumstance.

But, it is not about need or want, it is about rights. _

So, yea, I agree with you and others, and even agree that there are a lot more important things the schools are doing to prevent violence that have nothing to do with the gun issue.

But once again, it is about rights, not about need or wants.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 13, 2006)

Ceicei said:


> When Utah passed the law that allowed those with CCW permits to carry onto public school properties, there had been dire predictions that this would cause problems. Thus far, no problems have happened as a result of passing the law.


 
And at the end of the day, that is what it'll amount too. I hope in the future people will be able to look at Utah as an example, and the collective view on this issue will change.

Nice post.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 13, 2006)

Again, I will say from my 13 years of experience as a teacher, I see no purpose in allowing guns in schools.  I ask you to consider the following statistics:



> *Child Deaths in America in Context, 1997-98*
> 
> 
> *40*  -The number of people (including some adults) that were shot and killed in school during the academic year, 1997-98.  *11* -The number of children shot and killed in Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; and Springfield, Oregon.
> ...





> http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/25/school.violence.statistics/index.html*Ratio of reported crimes per 100,000 public school students, by type of crime and instructional level (1996-1997) *   Type of CrimeAll schools
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]*[SIZE=+1]*[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]*[SIZE=+1]Firearm Violations at Schools and Firearm-Related Death Among Children and Teens in Colorado *[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
> [*] During the 1996-97 school year in Colorado, 475 students aged five to 17 (65.2 per 100,000 students) were expelled for Gun Free School Act weapons violations.2   Reported figures are expulsions for _all_ weapons, not just firearms.
> [*]     In 1996 there were 44 children and teens _19 years of age and younger_ shot and killed with firearms in Colorado: 16 in firearm homicides; 23 in firearm suicides; four in unintentional shootings; and one firearms death of unknown intent.3
> ...


I simply feel that there are too many other issues that are much more important than this one.  I do realize that, by posting on this issue, in this forum, I am decidedly in the minority - but that does not mean than my opinion is invalid, as has been implied by several posters, just that I see no purpose in changing this particular set of laws.  I truly don't think that the potential benefits outweigh the potential consequences.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 13, 2006)

This benefit is simply to allow a level of preparedness in case something did 
happen.

Jeff


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 13, 2006)

Kacey posted some good statistics and figures.

All examples of stats. that could be reduced or prevented if more law abiding citizens weren't stripped of their carry rights in schools and other places.

Nice job!


----------



## Grenadier (Sep 13, 2006)

You may want to take those reports with many grains of salt, especially considering that some of the references borrow heavily from the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, aka another rabid wing of the Brady Campaign.  Yes, the same organization that includes 24 year old adults in their "children" category.  

If you wanted an honest appraisal of the threat posed by law-abiding firearms owners who are eligible to carry concealed firearms, I strongly doubt that you're going to find any significant population in those figures.  

Again, attempting to claim that law-abiding firearms owners who lawfully carry concealed firearms, are responsible for the commission of crimes, is akin to trying to blame people who lawfully take painkillers versus those heroin junkies.  You're looking at two different types of people.  Banning narcotic-based pain killers isn't going to stop heroin junkies.  




Kacey said:


> Again, I will say from my 13 years of experience as a teacher, I see no purpose in allowing guns in schools. I ask you to consider the following statistics:
> 
> *40* -The number of people (including some adults) that were shot and killed in school during the academic year, 1997-98. *11* -The number of children shot and killed in Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; and Springfield, Oregon.


 
None of which were committed by a law-abiding gunowner who had the proper permits to carry.  Such homicides were performed by criminals, who were ineligible to own firearms anyways.  Children are ineligible for firearms permits, keep in mind.  



> *8* -The number of children who die from gunfire every day.(7)


 
This grossly inflated number includes gangbangers of age 18-24 who aren't in school, and kill each other in shootouts.  Criminals will kill each other, regardless of what laws are in place, and trying to lump law-abiding firearms owners in with them is irrelevant.  

I'm not going to bother with the rest, since there is still no proof at all, that law abiding firearms owners who have permits to carry, are the cause of these child deaths.  Instead, the only things that are listed are from the actions of people who are not amongst the law-abiding people with valid carry permits.

The original debate was about whether or not law abiding firearms owners who have permits to carry, should be allowed to carry in schools.  They have already passed several background checks, and as a whole, aren't the type to cause trouble.  Again, keep in mind, that children are *ineligible* for such permits.  

On the other hand, criminals are criminals, because they break the law.  No amount of legislation that attacks the law-abiding will affect criminals.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 13, 2006)

Grenadier, good post.

If a stat comes from the Brady bunch, you can pretty much assume that it's either over-inflated, or outright false.


----------



## arnisandyz (Sep 15, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> The fact that their hasn't been an epidemic in Florida of erronious shootings points to the fact that skill level doesn't need to be State mandated. People simple need to be held responible for their actions. As in Law Enforcement circles, you will always have people who "shouldn't carry," people who are highly skilled, and people in between.
> 
> It's not about skill, it's about rights.




I'm all for rights.  Take Freedom of Speech for example. I believe people should be allowed to speak freely without censorship...but it doesn't mean I want my 6 year old daughter exposed to it.  Although more of a privledge, take driving, there are alot of people on the road that shouldn't be driving, yet they are legally licensed to do so. They have a right to be on the road, they may drive through my daughter's school crossing, I can't do anything about it, but I am concerned as a parent. I guess thats where my indifference comes from. When you have a little one, protecting them becomes the most important thing in your life. My daughter is well trained, like me she is being raised in a firearm friendly household. But what about the other kids?


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 15, 2006)

arnisandyz said:


> I'm all for rights. Take Freedom of Speech for example. I believe people should be allowed to speak freely without censorship...but it doesn't mean I want my 6 year old daughter exposed to it. Although more of a privledge, take driving, there are alot of people on the road that shouldn't be driving, yet they are legally licensed to do so. They have a right to be on the road, they may drive through my daughter's school crossing, I can't do anything about it, but I am concerned as a parent. I guess thats where my indifference comes from. When you have a little one, protecting them becomes the most important thing in your life. My daughter is well trained, like me she is being raised in a firearm friendly household. But what about the other kids?


 
I can see your point of view. But once again, it is an emotionally based one (concern for your child) not a logical one.

Logically speaking, if law abiding people were allowed to carry on school property, provided that it had to be concealed and on the person, then there wouldn't be a problem. As it has been shown so far in Utah, some people legally carry concealed in schools and it doesn't even effect anyones day. Logically speaking, you can't account for that 1 and a 1,000 a-hole that would go driving through a school crossing, or who would abuse their carry privelages, no matter how strict you try to make the laws. The best we can do is educate people, respect individual rights, and penalize those who abuse those rights and cause problems.

But, I think you know all that...


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 15, 2006)

arnisandyz said:


> I'm all for rights. Take Freedom of Speech for example. I believe people should be allowed to speak freely without censorship...but it doesn't mean I want my 6 year old daughter exposed to it.


 
These are different issues. You have a right to censor what your daughter is exposed too. Carrying concealed in a school where the child wouldn't see it has nothing to do with "exposing our children to guns." In other words, it is not the same as swearing in the school, or something like that. Plus, you know where your censorship rights begin and end. You can censor what your child watches on TV, and what is said in your house. But you can't censor what someone says in a public place. But you can only frequent places where the people at that place are kid friendly, and don't tolerate inappropriate behavior and language around kids. 

But once again, different issue.


----------



## arnisandyz (Sep 18, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> I can see your point of view. But once again, it is an emotionally based one (concern for your child) not a logical one.
> 
> Logically speaking, if law abiding people were allowed to carry on school property, provided that it had to be concealed and on the person, then there wouldn't be a problem. .




Damnit Spock!!!....reminds me of the old StarTrek episodes when Spock would comment on how "highly illogical" some of the Captain Kirks decisions were. If we were to let machines based on logic make all the decisions for us, I think it would be a much different world than it is today. We're humans, humans have emotions that should be factored into logical decisions.

Take for example, risking your life so others can live. Giving up one life to save hundreds is a logical decision. However, when that one life is your own or a loved one and if the hundreds you may save are people you know or don't know. it makes it more complicated, doesn't it?


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 18, 2006)

arnisandyz said:


> Damnit Spock!!!....reminds me of the old StarTrek episodes when Spock would comment on how "highly illogical" some of the Captain Kirks decisions were. If we were to let machines based on logic make all the decisions for us, I think it would be a much different world than it is today. We're humans, humans have emotions that should be factored into logical decisions.
> 
> Take for example, risking your life so others can live. Giving up one life to save hundreds is a logical decision. However, when that one life is your own or a loved one and if the hundreds you may save are people you know or don't know. it makes it more complicated, doesn't it?


 
A Vulcan cannot compute such issues.


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 13, 2006)

I thought about creating a new thread, but this article fits here in this thread.  I'll post the link for your perusal.
*************
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650198346,00.html

More than a dozen teachers and public school employees will spend part of their UEA weekend in a classroom &#8212; learning how to use a gun.  Clark Aposhian is offering a free class today to public school employees seeking to get their concealed- weapons permit.

*************
Note:

Utah is one of the few states that people with Concealed Weapons Permit can carry their guns upon public school properties.  UEA (Utah Education Association) is holding a convention during the long weekend for teachers/administrators to increase their educational development.  It is also the weekend that kids are off school.  The weekend runs October 12-October 16 with school resuming October 17.

- Ceicei


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 14, 2006)

No comments on my post before this one?  I guess people agree with it.... 

- Ceicei


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 14, 2006)

Personally, I think it's a great idea.  Kinda like allowing airline pilots that want to be armed access to a weapon.

Jeff


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 14, 2006)

Ceicei said:


> No comments on my post before this one? I guess people agree with it....
> 
> - Ceicei


 
Well...sort of...

The argument that school staff should be allowed the right to carry because it is not only their self-defense at stake but that of their students is a very good one.

I like that Aposhain offered free training, and emphasized that he doesn't agree with teachers roaming the halls looking for intruders or becoming Law Enforement officers; just that they have the training to protect themselves and others in their area if the threat is immediate.

I also agree with idea that guns should NOT be allowed to be put in desk drawers and closets and such. They should be on the person, or properly locked in a vehicle or at home. No in between, because that is how accidents happened. This is really no different then the average person who carries at their workplace or in public places; you should never leave your firearm unattended unless it is properly secured (as in locked), with rare exceptions. So this should definitaly be no different then in a school. And penalties for such an act (which most people won't violate, mind you) should be severe due to the fact that you are in a school; in other words, loss of concealed carry privilages.

I can see the misconceptions fostered by members of the UAE in the article. First of all, allowing law abiding citizens to carry, whether in a school or elseware, does not pose "too much of a risk." If that were true, then there would be countless incidents of accidental and erronious shootings due to Concealed Pistol Carrying, of which there is not. The accidents and erronious shootings that do occur are due to irrresponsible behavior mutually exclusive from those who concealed carry. The majority of those who have permits don't have accidents or problems. You can also see the straw man hypotheticals, like, "what's to stop a student or someone from taking the gun away?" Again, there is no epidemic of CPL/CCW holders having their guns taken away from them. The only people having their guns taken from them on rare occasions, ironically, are cops. This is due to certain dynamics of their job that teachers and most CPL/CCW holders don't encounter. Even with cops, though, the numbers of "guns being taken away" are low.

This brings me to my last point.... 

*Obligating school staff to carry weapons to defend our children is a dangerous mistake....*

The UAE has the right to disagree with carry in schools, they just don't have the right to try to make it illegal or against policy. That said, I don't think the UAE should be involved in this issue at all. Teachers are not law enforcement. I am not so sure that the UAE should be spending time on staff development weekends teaching firearms tactics, as the article implied ("More than a dozen teachers and public school employees will spend part of their UEA weekend in a classroom  learning how to use a gun"). 

Teachers need the right to carry at work, but only because that is an individual right that needs to be maintained. But school should not be seen or treated as a warzone either. Their _job_ is the teaching and development of kids. Their _right and responsibility_ as a citizen is to carry and be able to defend themselves. We should not be arming our teachers as a means to fight school shootings and terrorism; we should simply be allowing them the rights to choose to be armed safely if they want that responsibility. The issues of school violence needs to be fought at home (parents), in schools with astute teachers and counsolers and social workers trained to recognize and treat "problem" kids, and all of the wonderful preventative measures that our teachers have been improving on each year, with each staff development meeting and conference. Our teachers deserve respect and admiration in that in such a violently driven society, with the media and TV and all the socio-economic factors, they have been able to reduce school violence as a whole through important holistic and preventative measures. That is why teachers signed up for their jobs; not to police our kids but to nurture and educate. That is where the focus of UAE or school district sponsered training sessions should be.

I think it is good that certain groups are willing to offer free training to school staff, and that this issue is addressed. It is even good to hold some of these training sessions safely in the schools after hours (air soft simulations and scenarios and such). But these should be extra ciricular activities that staff CAN organize and participate in IF THEY WANT TO. I think that it is important that school staff maintains their right to carry. However, I think that we get into a dangerous slippery slope if we mandate or obligate teachers to carry as a means to police or defend our kids. Teachers have enough responsibility and stress as it is; so we need to respect their rights to carry or choose not to carry, and allow them to do what they do best, which is nurture and educate.

Paul


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 14, 2006)

This one doesn't really have anything to do with guns, but I think it fits in with the idea that we're discussing:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15253321/


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 14, 2006)

kenpotex said:


> This one doesn't really have anything to do with guns, but I think it fits in with the idea that we're discussing:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15253321/


 
Oh my....

O.K., here is what I think, and I am guessing that people will disagree:

This is exactly what I mean about treating schools like they are war zones. If the media portrayal in that link is accurate, then I can't see this as a good thing. Here is why...

1. I am not an expert in child development and psychology, but from what I understand, kids in general don't have the ability to proportionalize reality the same way that adults can. An adult, for example, can watch a fictional movie on serial killers, read a book on serial killers, and watch a TV special on serial killers in the same week and objectively or instinctively realize that even though that at that moment the idea of "serial killers" is taking up a large proportion of his/her life, serial killers aren't hiding in every nook and cranny of their lives. A kid, on the other hand, can't make those distinctions. Mass media and our own mesmorization presents violence in a disproportionate way. Most people can manage to get through their lives without being involved in a shooting, or a slaying of some sort; but if you believed that TV, newspapers, and video games represented reality proportionally, then you wouldn't think that you couldn't walk down the street without being killed.

But as adults, we realize that violence is represented disproportionately; but do kids? Some studies that I am familiar with imply that they don't. Even if they logically realize in their young heads that violence is over-represented, they still become desensitized, and violent solutions become more viable to them. 

The boogyman for kids is no longer Washington Irving's headless horseman that kids can spook each other and giggle over because they know that there is no real threat. The new boogyman is a terrorist with a bomb or boxcutter, a neighbor who kidnaps and eats his victims, or a kid just like them lurking through the hallways with a shotgun. And to them, this boogyman is real. And even though the statistical probability of being shot up in a school or attacked is very low, the idea disproportionately consumes their lives.

This is not healthy. It blurs the lines of morality and misrepresents reality, because when "everyone" seems to be using violence as viable solutions to everyday problems, then this can make very obviously maladaptive and violent behaviors seem reasonable. 

Having school wide training sessions, and other methods of investing district wide time and energy to solutions disproportionate to a threat adds to the problem rather then the solution.

#2. This sort of thing is a knee jerk reaction based on fear by adults who are most likely seperated from the reality of violence. They hear of a school shooting epidemic, and they have a collective panic attack. People panic in different ways, and most of these ways are maladaptive rather then adaptive. Many folks might go through denial, for example. Some anti-gun folks percieving themselves as powerless, might project their fear by enforcing their powerlessness on others, for another example. In this case, these folks seem to be overreacting as their defense. Proverbally, they are afraid of that elephant they have never seen but have only heard about, so they are ready to hit it with a nuclear missle rather then a large caliber rifle.

#3. Because of this knee-jerk reaction as described above, they are way out of the realm of a viable solution to school violence because they are overcompensating.

Sure...in THEORY, a handful of 6th graders and a teacher could stop a lone gunman. But once that gunman starts blowing holes into kids, and kids and teachers see the insides of their friends, their co-workers, and people that they know and love being ****ing sprayed accross the tiles, that strategy will likely change very quickly, regardless of training. 

Our US infantry men, the best trained in the world, have a substantial rate of failure due to hesitation and combat stress among their ranks. A certain small percentage are unable to fire, period. Most will fire, but there is an entire science of warfare, and months of disciplined training that enables that. And even then, the first time for a soldier in a firefight is often a disasterous endeavor, as they don't perform like their training makes them think that they would. They make it through due to their team members, tactics, and firepower. After one or a few experiences, they are then able to perform well under combat conditions. And remember, it is a smaller percentage of our military that are elite and are out there able to perform well under stressful, close quarter, violent situations. Most don't and wouldn't take the infantry jobs to begin with to even have to be able to perform under that level of stress and violence.

Yet, we are now supposed to believe that after a cool few hour talk and training simulation, a group of 6th graders are going to have the intestinal fortitude to continue an unarmed onslaught on a gunman while their peers and teachers are being slaughtered? That is the most unrealistic thing I have heard of all week. Everyone knows that 99% of those kids are going to hesitate, panic, and be at a loss of what to do while potentially getting shot in the process rather then getting the hell out of the building and surviving.  

#4. This kind of **** is bad for the rest of us who are trying to convince a doubting public that the right to carry concealed is a viable, inalienable right that shouldn't be taken away. 

For those that don't believe that guns should be carried concealed in the schools, one big fear is that their school, which should be a nurturing and academic environment, is going to turn into a blackwater combat shooting simulation site. This is not the case in most situations, except apparently for these panicky overreactors. 

In most cases and as can be seen in Utah, allowing the few staff and parents who so desire to exercise their concealed carry and self-defense rights on school property does nothing to disrupt the environment. This is no different then allowing these rights to be exercised on the streets. Yet, districtwide mandated training like this article describes completely crosses the line of reasonableness.

The sort of thing the article discribed is not only unreasonable, but it is disruptive to a healthy environment. This behavior actually ruins it for the rest of us who want to reasonably maintain our self-defense and carry rights in places like schools.

I want to say that those tactical instructors out there teaching 6th graders how to throw books and pencils at armed gunmen ought to be ashamed of themselves.

#5.  Students and staff DO need to be taught a disaster plan, and self-defense programs SHOULD be a part of the physical education curriculum. However, these need to be reasonable and realistic, where violence is not the blanket solution to all problems.

I am happy to report that recent data suggests that there is no danger of a school building flying into the pentagon or white house, unlike flight 93 was attempting. Your also not likely to exit a school building and fall thousands of feet through the sky to the ground below. So we can all relax a little and realize that the best solution for students and staff if there are armed assailents in the school is to get out of the building and run to safety. 

We all forget that out of the 13 people killed that day in Columbine, about 1800 or so survived; and mostly because they ran to safety. This was after over 100 shots fired and explosive detonations.

Even as was advocated in Ceicei's article; armed teachers shouldn't be prowling around the schools like the swat team. They should be helping their students get to safety, and they should only be using their firearms if the threat is immediate and right in front of them. No, an armed person doesn't have to retreat at all costs; but they shouldn't be prowling around the school like a badly choreographed Steven Segal movie either. They should simply be doing what will save the most lives at that time.

I maintain that if staff or parents want to take the responsibility for the defense of others and themselves by carrying a firearm, then they should be allowed to do so in school buildings as well as everywhere else. This is part of taking personal responibility, and personal responsability is a good lesson for our kids. But personal responsability does not mean throwing reason out the window. This should be about saving as many lives as possible and fostering a healthy environment, not about being a bad ***, or training teenagers to be like Sean Astin in the movie "Toy Soldiers."

Paul Janulis


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 14, 2006)

Paul,

That post is probably the most well written post I've read in a long time, full of thoughtful reason and objectivity.  Thank you so much for taking the time to write that.  There is not much more I could add to what you wrote.

- Ceicei


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2006)

Wow...thanks Ceicei..


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 15, 2006)

Good post Paul.  I definately see your points about this training/instruction not being a good idea as it is being done.  One question:  Would your opinion be different if this type of training were conducted on an individual level.  In other words, if a parent chose to teach their child/children the same type of material would you look at it any differently?

BTW: I personally find the idea of dealing with a gunman by throwing pencils at him somewhat laughable.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 15, 2006)

kenpotex said:


> Good post Paul. I definately see your points about this training/instruction not being a good idea as it is being done. One question: Would your opinion be different if this type of training were conducted on an individual level. In other words, if a parent chose to teach their child/children the same type of material would you look at it any differently?


 
Yes, definatily. Although I would hope that what was being taught was reasonable, of course, but even if it wasn't, at least it isn't being taught to the entire school.



> BTW: I personally find the idea of dealing with a gunman by throwing pencils at him somewhat laughable.


 
And that's really the thing. It makes me wonder if the school administrators watched all of the "Home Alone" sequels in preparation for this.

I want to reinerate that having a disaster plan is important, whether it be a tornado or armed assailent. But, we don't spend a day of school teaching kids all about tornado's and how to deal with them, etc. Fighting back isn't a horrible thing to have as a last resort in the disaster plan, but it shouldn't be represented disproportionataly or placed above the more practical solutions like getting to safety.

A good approach for schools would be to have a disaster plan that accounts for these kinds of threats, where a realistic solution is detailed, but with language and a presentation that doesn't make the kids think that they are going to be facing armed gunmen every week. This should be presented no more proportionally then other disaster plans (such as fires, tornado's, etc.) In fact, I would say it should be presented less proportionally then the other disasters because depending on local, the statistical probability of dealing with a tornado or fire or earthquake is higher then dealing with a terrorist threat in the school building.

Then, self-defense should be a part of the physical education curriculum. This way, kids are learning the practical aspects of self-defense that will work best for them, such as how to deal with strangers, how to use voice, running away, and fighting back as a last resort. This will help them with more likely threats that they could face; like a child abductor for example. Presented appropriately, this will teach kids to be responsible for their own self-defense at an early age, which helps young ladies grow up with self-respect and dignity and the ability to say no, and young boys to grow up with a sense of responsability and respect for human life. These are more important and far more practical then having an assembly where kids are taught to throw their rulers at gunmen. They'll grow to learn an understanding of what self-defense means. Then, in the unlikely chance that they have to "fight back" as a last resort against an armed assailent in a school, they are more likely to succeed.

Any disaster plan and self-defense program needs to be approached holistically. I am all for effective disaster plans that are realistic expectations and presentations. I am in support of effective self-defense programs being integrated into the physical education curriculum that helps foster things like self-confidence, responsibility, dignity, and physical fitness in the process of giving practical self-defense solutions for children. These all need to be subtly integrated into the program. I am not for knee-jerk school district wide reactions that entertain unrealistic and dangerous expectations, and that harbor more panic and violence in our children. 

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 17, 2006)

Oooo...lookie...

I found a clip from the Burleson, TX school district disaster planning training video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO1yR5-wJXQ&mode=related&search=


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 17, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Yes, definatily. Although I would hope that what was being taught was reasonable, of course, but even if it wasn't, at least it isn't being taught to the entire school.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think it would be a great idea to have self defense as part of the schools physical education program.  We should be teaching our children awareness, avoidance and action skills for the real world.  Unfortunately I do not see most administrators wanting self defense taught in their schools.  Similar to most Police Chiefs not really wanting to have a heavy emphasis on Defensive tactics in their departments as well.  Simply put they would be and are afraid of lawsuits.


----------



## Grenadier (Oct 17, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Unfortunately I do not see most administrators wanting self defense taught in their schools.


 
Many such admininstrators are still living in their own worlds, thinking that such things are "evil" without having any knowledge in such matters.  They believe that such things promote violence, when that's simply not the case. 

I can only hope that through patience, and persistence, that the martial arts community can change such beliefs.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 17, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think it would be a great idea to have self defense as part of the schools physical education program. We should be teaching our children awareness, avoidance and action skills for the real world. Unfortunately I do not see most administrators wanting self defense taught in their schools. Similar to most Police Chiefs not really wanting to have a heavy emphasis on Defensive tactics in their departments as well. Simply put they would be and are afraid of lawsuits.


 
I think your right for most districts, unfortunatily.

But, for districts like Burleson who are willing to pay tactical instructors to do a school-wide assembly on teaching middle schoolers how to throw pencils and rulers at gunmen, they might be open to consider an alternative that doesn't involve an unrealistic "band-aid" solution, that isn't a "knee-jerk" reaction to recent cases of school violence, and that would do better to foster the idea that violence isn't always the solution to everything in our children.

It's hard to pin-point my biggest problem with the Burleson solution, but if I had to it would probably be the fact that these folks don't even realize that they are actually breeding more violent behavior in children with solutions like what they purpose.

Paul


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 17, 2006)

That is probably the fear of most administrators is that they would be teaching children of all ages how to be more violent.  Similar to the fear of police administrators not wanting their officers to receive the best Hand to hand training because they fear they will use it and hurt someone. (rather than how it could protect their officers life)  
Plus throw in the legalease and I do not see a nationwide public school self defense curriculum starting anytime soon.  I wish that were not the case but unfortunately it is.

I would also agree that the afore mentioned program in Texas looks pretty limited in its effectiveness.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 17, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I would also agree that the afore mentioned program in Texas looks pretty limited in its effectiveness.


 
And to clarify, it is programs like the article described that fosters violent behavior in children, because unlike a viable self-defense program, the assumption is that a violent solution is the primary one.

When it appears that the primary way to solve many problems is through violence, and when it appears that there is violence lurking in every corner, then kids will have the tendency to exhibit more violent behaviors. If a hammer is your primary tool, everything begins to look like a nail.

A viable self-defense program, on the other hand, doesn't have violence as the primary option, and doesn't present material as if armed terrorists are going to burst into the door at any moment. There are a lot of common sense behaviors and awareness stuff that is emphasized as your first lines of defense.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 17, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Plus throw in the legalease and I do not see a nationwide public school self defense curriculum starting anytime soon. I wish that were not the case but unfortunately it is.


 
I wouldn't want that, though. I think it should be up to each school district to decide as to whether or not they should include a viable self-defense program in their curriculum.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 17, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think it would be a great idea to have self defense as part of the schools physical education program.  We should be teaching our children awareness, avoidance and action skills for the real world.  Unfortunately I do not see most administrators wanting self defense taught in their schools.  Similar to most Police Chiefs not really wanting to have a heavy emphasis on Defensive tactics in their departments as well.  Simply put they would be and are afraid of lawsuits.


I taught a TKD class in my school as a club, but couldn't get enough students to make it viable - but my adminstration thought it was a great idea.

I know a woman in Tennessee who is a PE teacher, who taught TKD as the PE curriculum - not part, mind you, but the entire curriculum.  The administration loved it - the level of discipline problems reduced significantly during the several years she taught it, which was part of the purpose.

Problems I see with teaching self-defense in schools:

- it needs to start very young, when the moral values incumbent on good instructors can be taught strongly enough to counterbalance other messages reaching the students - because too many students are not being taught moral values at home - values like "do unto others" are often lost to "might makes right" in today's society.  As a teacher, I can provide my students with a positive example - but that only goes so far, when they spend 85%+ of their lives OUTSIDE the school.
- it needs to have a purpose beyond "in case there's a school invasion".  Despite the recent occurrences, this just doesn't happen that much.  Unlike fire drills, however, which can be held 2-3 times a year and that's enough, self-defense training would have to be ongoing to be effective - and quite frankly, the schools have enough to teach already.
- the availability of instructors.  Sure, it could most easily be done through the PE department - but how many PE teachers are trained martial arts instructors?  And how many trained MA instructors want to become licensed teachers?
- alternative activities for students whose parents object on moral, religious, or other grounds

It's not that administrators don't want this, although I'm sure some do - it's that schools are already teaching way too many things that the parents should be teaching - everything from drug awareness to sex ed to bicycle safety to nutrition.  At some point, the community and the parents need to step up and teach their own kids something - and quite frankly, it's the parents who are NOT teaching their kids whose kids cause problems.  Income is not the determining factor - it is how involved parents are in their kids' lives that makes the difference, not what the school teaches them.  Sure, a good teacher can (and often does) make a difference in children's lives - but there are a lot of factors out there that the schools cannot control - and should not be responsible for controlling.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 17, 2006)

I think that if it is not a martial art program, but a self-defense program that emphasizes all of the issues I mentioned that have little to do with fighting technique, then I think it can be useful if implemented into phys. ed., and wouldn't need to be an ongoing program to be effective.

However, I agree that too much is left up to the schools, that should be handled at home...

Paul


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 17, 2006)

Yes, certainly parents do need to do a lot more at home.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 17, 2006)

And thinking about it...yes I still agree that more needs to be done at home, but...

But as far as districts implimenting age appropriate self-defense (again, not martial art specific) into the phys. ed. program for (as an example) 6 weeks every 2 years starting at 2nd grade, and ending at 8th; and then allowing for 1 semester of gym credit in high school (not manditory, but among other credits available for phys. ed.), what would be so wrong with that?

6 weeks every alternating year isn't too intrusive, yet is plenty of time to teach valuable, lifesaving information to children. And besides, I think that would be a lot more useful then half the stuff that is done in gym classes now a days anyhow.

Side note: am I the ONLY one that found the home alone link humerous? :lol2:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 17, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> And thinking about it...yes I still agree that more needs to be done at home, but...
> 
> But as far as districts implimenting age appropriate self-defense (again, not martial art specific) into the phys. ed. program for (as an example) 6 weeks every 2 years starting at 2nd grade, and ending at 8th; and then allowing for 1 semester of gym credit in high school (not manditory, but among other credits available for phys. ed.), what would be so wrong with that?
> 
> ...


 
It is hard to disagree with that as I love Self Defense training.  Unfortunately I do not see anything like this being implemented anytime soon.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 17, 2006)

A few years ago, my wife went to the local high school and offered to make a self defense program available to the teachers.  The Principal responded by saying you can't disguise fighting by calling it self-defense.  Remember, this was for the teachers.  A lot of people out there just can't stand the thought of it.

Jeff


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 17, 2006)

Certainly many school districts won't allow it.

But for those districts looking to bring in tactical instructors to teach 6th graders how to throw pencils at gunman, I would think that proper disaster planning and a good realistic, age appropriate self-defense program would be a good alternative...


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 22, 2008)

-bump-

...cause this was a pretty good discussion.


----------

