To me this is like dangers of hobby pilots. I don't want a armed hobbyist armed trying to protect my kids. If you watched some of that Dallas terrorist shooting video you could see that the average cop doesn't have much of a chance against even a semi-trained killer. If this were to be implemented I would want teacher/guard to be a full time guard and not just a teacher with a little extra training.

I couldn't agree more. My wife is a teacher and in no circumstance would I want her to be armed (I love her but she's not capable, and no amount of training would fix it). I feel we would lose more people to misuse of the firearm-accidental discharges, unauthorized user getting control of the weapon, etc.-than we would to bandits coming armed to campuses and causing trouble.

I see value in an armed teacher for hunkering down to protect "their" children in a lock down situation.
Not running around the campus on a search and destroy mission. Bad guy forces his way in, teacher has something more than a sharp pencil to work with.

Again, Rules of Engagement are the critical component in this.

Specifically, I see it as a potential volunteer position by people who already have a carry permit - and are dedicated and willing to undergo more rigorous training and re qualification on a regular basis.

We live in an ever more violent world, where so many people have lost the perceived value of life itself.

Marc

I believe having a firearm ready to defend the classroom in this scenario is what most people are talking about....not forming a team of armed teachers to sweep and clear school buildings.....defensive...not offensive.....shelter in place and wait for law enforcement to arrive and clear the building.....

Yes, that would make sense. I have no doubt my wife would be all for something like that. However, there is no way it could ever be a mandatory requirement. It's always good to be proactive but it's sad that these scenerios must be even entertained. Attacking schools and children is about as low as it gets.

So you would rather have teachers, administrators, and bus drivers be disarmed should there be an attack. Got it.


If I am going to die in an attack, at least give me the option of giving the kids a fighting chance of living instead of just laying over to accept death.

I personally don't assume I am safe because I am armed or that I am unsafe because I don't happen to have a gun on me. But I was actually agreeing with your comment below.




It would be very scary for me as a parent to know my kid's teacher was strapped and didn't have adequate training to use the firearm appropriately. Unless you are a trained on a military-like level and practice on a daily basis you probably aren't prepared to go toe to toe with a terrorist, who doesn't care about his own life,who is probably wearing body armor and has an AR-15 with nothing but a side arm yourself.

As I said go watch footage of that Dallas terror attack and see what can happen to even a well trained police officer in a situation. I just have a hard time believing a teacher who would be a part time guard would fare better than a well trained police officer when faced with such a situation.

Ok, cool.

In a perfect world I agree with you. But the phrase "when seconds count police are minutes away" holds true.

The only way I would be comfortable with staff carrying is if there was a lot of training. I'm not a bad shot, but I too could use more training.

Just the fact that staff could be carrying changes a school from no longer being a soft target and would help to prevent mass shootings at schools.

Target rich environment where minimal effort can achieve maximum results....terrorist/whacko paradise.... same as any "gun free zone".....

I have seen men that have went through 8 weeks of basic training, and the 10 weeks of advanced Infantry training. Then make the trip to the combat zone and freeze up at the start of the first firefight. I would rather see one proven person than a handful of people that have no clue no what they will do if the SHTF.

Anyone can be trained to hit the target and eventually do a great job of consistently hitting the bulls eye. But when under an extreme pressure situation, the whole scenario can become a FUBAR.

Agreed

I support the principle of armed teachers as long as they receive the proper training and vetting. They need to have the ability and the will to do what needs to be done.
I have had a lot of people ask me over the years about my opinion of whether or not they should carry a firearm. My first question is generally whether or not they are willing to shoot a bad guy in the face if necessary, and you might be shocked at the number of people who say no. Most of them say if they just point a gun at the bad guy it should resolve the problem. Those people have no business carrying a firearm. Most people can be trained to hit a bulls eye target, some can't be trained to shoot another person under any circumstances. That would not help anyone in a school shooting scenario.

I am sure it tougher and probably they have to go yearly also. I would trust a police officer shot any day of joe blow off the street.

With a CHL you are shooting like a few feet in front of you, which is the stupid part of CHL in my opinion.

Those of you who just think folks carrying makes a situation safer have a lot to learn about the real world. Thise with actual experience in these matters are the ones to listen to.

Proper training and proven competency? Yes.
A bunch of basically untrained folks who passed the LTC course? No.

How long you think it would be before someone's precious little angle swiped one of the teachers guns and causes a ruckus?

If they are carrying concealed as they should be then: 1) the students shouldn't know if they are armed or not. 2) If the students get access to a concealed and carried firearm then they are doing something they shouldn't be doing in the first place. 3) I guess people who carry out or at work loose their firearms all the time...I guess they fall into the hands of co-workers or complete strangers...

Fellas, I ain't much of an authority, and I have no training, but I can shoot straight and I would walk through the fires of hell on Sunday for my kids. If all my 950 kids got between them and a bad guy, is me, well the bad guy is in for a fight.


Carry on.

Nuff said.....and the single greatest protection for those kids is the fact that the bad guys know guns could (and most likely are) there in the school....no longer a gun free zone.......no longer as attractive a target......

And you would have zero issues with training. Some would.

I have always found it funny that they don't take a drug test. My wife teaches 1st grade and I have been telling her for years that she should start using cocaine.

This is misleading. Some districts do test teachers/employees, all bus drivers are tested, annually and randomly. That includes the majority of coaches, sponsors, etc.

Exactly. The pathetic cowards that perpetrate these school shootings are counting on it being
a " gun free " zone.

I personally believe that all schools should have 2-3 LEO's on site during all school hours.

Carve out whatever needs to be carved out of the budget to pay for it, and these school shootings will likely
stop.

Barring that, you bet I would be willing to take the chance on an armed, or preferably several armed teachers, coaches or principles on site at the moment of attack, rather than give these cowards the ability to kill and maim until the cavalry shows up and stops the threat.

So why should we just settle for using teachers as part time security guards rather than hire full time properly trained LEO? I guess that is my biggest problem. I see using teachers as a cheap compromise versus paying up and allocating the proper resources to combat this problem if it requires such a solution.

Just because schools are 'gun free zones' doesn't necessarily mean there aren't any guns present on the campus either. Don't most Public ISDs have their own police departments? Maybe we are just wasteful with our resources and spend them on massively expensive athletic stadiums vs adequate protection for our kids.

Think about this McKinney ISD just spend close to $63 Million on a football stadium. They have 29 campuses including elementary through high school. Instead of wasting that money on something un-necessary like the stadium they could have paid for 3 full time LEO to be stationed at each school $75k/year each for the next 10 years.

Our schools already have LEO's on campus.....and our teachers/administrators are allowed to CC....I'm thankful for it...