Likewise - I respect your opinion; I disagree with it.
From The American President:
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.
Guns in public schools?
- Thread starter KenpoTex
- Start date
Likewise - I respect your opinion; I disagree with it.
From The American President:
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.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
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
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
Grandmaster
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
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
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.
Right; not trying to paint you as anti gun, Mike, as I know that you're not.
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
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
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
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
Same up here Jeff...
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.
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.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
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.
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
Master Black Belt
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 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, 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
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
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.
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...
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
Anyone ever met someone who only trains forms and basics?- Latest: Kung Fu Wang
-
-
-
