Guns in public schools?

[Cruentus]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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