Guns in schools: Yes or No?

[Dave Workman]

Culture clash: Should school administrators, staff be armed?


Something of a culture clash is unfolding on today's editorial page of the Seattle Times and Monday's editorial page of the Tri-City Herald, with the Eastern Washington newspaper supporting the idea of armed school administrators and staff in the Toppenish School District, and the Western Washington newspaper calling the idea "a disaster waiting to happen."


<broken link removed>

Feel free to add an opinion at the end of the column.

Read More

 

[RicInOR]

Deen_ad has an avatar which points out how successful having armed teachers can be.

But, I am torn on the issue. Most of those I know who work "inside" the buildings are not familiar with firearms.

At my work, they removed all of the fire extinguishers. There is a sprinkler system. The reasoning is that even with some basic training, most people get "fearless" when they have the red can in their hands and rather than running they charge the fire. It takes a great deal of training if you are to be a sheepdog. Having and using a FE as a defensive tool at home or in the car is far different than being in a situation where you are responsible for others.

I think why Israel is successful with the firearms in schools is because everyone got training. There is a video of a private school down in the desert where the Principle and others are armed, the video goes on to show they get range time. But if you watch the one, they are not what I would call safe - could be poor editing of course.
This is the same place I am thinking of, but not the video/story I recall.

At first pass, I would suggest limited people - who are always there, like the secretary, and issue them a nice 870, with a sling. Or, a semi-auto shot gun. I'd have it loaded with Shot.




ps. @Dave Workman - Nice article

 

[Chee-to]

The Libs KNOW it'll work, they place their agendas above the lives of kids.............

 

[John H]

To be honest that is a lot of burden to bear as a staff member.

What if they hit a innocent kid?? They have to live with that guilt .

I really think it is a tough call.

 

[Bruin]

Yes.

 

[jrprich]

Unlikely to happen in today's culture. If it did, funding for it would be the first thing cut in next years budget

 

[ocarolan]

Why not just retire public schools? Let kids decide if they want online classes, private school, whatever. In the internet age most kids probably don't need or want them anymore. And let those schools decide if they want guns.

 

[Cogs]

If it's not a mandatory requirement, for teachers to be armed, then we will get only those who are truly concerned and interested in protecting our kids. They are the ones who will give sincere devotion to the education and training in concealed carry. They will be our first responders who will make a difference.

Shall we just wait for the police to arrive? I can't afford that.

I vote yes. Let them be armed.

Bill

 

[semperfi68to70]

Teachers who have valid permits to carry should be ALLOWED to carry, but not required to do so. Here is another idea; why not allow retired LEO/military/security personnel or just plain well trained and well armed citizens to volunteer time at a local school? I know when my kids were in school I would have gladly volunteered a day a week to patrol the school and make absolutely sure it was not a "gun free" zone waiting to be shot up by some mental case. It would appear that a malevolent shooter has absolutely no problem gaining entry to schools now, so that would kind of render moot the fears that the volunteer would somehow endanger the children. If parents don't want to protect the school their children are in because they don't believe in firearms, then the blame would be easy to place when some tragedy does occur. The only thing that is going to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Most libs do not appear to be particularly smart or at least particularly logical. Maybe we should print up bigger "GUN FREE ZONE" signs for near sighted murderers.

 

[deen_ad]

<- Why there aren't any school shootings in Israel!
Teacher with long gun slung over her shoulder!!!

Here is another idea; why not allow retired LEO/military/security personnel or just plain well trained and well armed citizens to volunteer time at a local school? I know when my kids were in school I would have gladly volunteered a day a week to patrol the school and make absolutely sure it was not a "gun free" zone waiting to be shot up by some mental case.

You mean do what the NRA proposed some time ago? And like what some schools are doing now?

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
NRA Golden Eagle member
Defender of Freedom Award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

 

[semperfi68to70]

<- Why there aren't any school shootings in Israel!
Teacher with long gun slung over her shoulder!!!



You mean do what the NRA proposed some time ago? And like what some schools are doing now?

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
NRA Golden Eagle member
Defender of Freedom Award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

Exactly! I have never heard one good argument against it. Maybe the NRA needs to speak a bit louder.

 

[meener777]

fact us, there is no gun control law or anything else on the horizon that will have any impact on school shootings. Having armed guards or staff plus other basic security measures like metal detectors, controlled entry, etc. are the only ideas that can have impact right now. If they really care about saving lives instead of banning guns then it makes no sense to oppose this.

 

[BigStick]

I suggested to some of my friends on facebook that we should allow teachers and admins to be armed. They immediately freaked out and said teachers would quite if they had to be armed, and you would have untrained people who didn't want the guns causing more danger.....

The left can't seem to understand that just because they try to force their worldview on the rest of us and control our actions, it doesn't mean we want to do the same. ALLOW (not force) those who want to, and are able to be ready. I don't think it should be mandatory, but I might even be ok with requiring special training for teachers who want to carry ( since it would be part of the job). Wether required or not, it should at least be available and subsidized.

And the same principals that apply to concealed carry as a deterent to crime, would start applying to school shooters. Not knowing who is armed can be a powerful tool/deterent.

 

[Koda]

To be honest that is a lot of burden to bear as a staff member.

What if they hit a innocent kid?? They have to live with that guilt .

I really think it is a tough call.

What is the difference from an armed teacher at school and you or I out at a crowded mall?

Consider its everyones right to be armed, and a school is a public place. The teacher doesnt have to protect the kids they may very well be protecting themselves. I'd rather have an armed teacher leading my children to exit than unarmed. Leave the engaging to the resource officer.

I say hands down YES.

 

[John H]

What is the difference from an armed teacher at school and you or I out at a crowded mall?

Consider its everyones right to be armed, and a school is a public place. The teacher doesnt have to protect the kids they may very well be protecting themselves. I'd rather have an armed teacher leading my children to exit than unarmed. Leave the engaging to the resource officer.

I say hands down YES.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I am against it.

And I do think it a big difference between you/me and a teacher, a lot of teachers are very attached to the kids .

Now having resource officers is a good thing.

 

[Kid@Heart]

School personnel should be ALLOWED to have a concealed weapon on school grounds if they wish. The school system should make it very clear to the public that some employees MIGHT have a firearm. Even better if you didn't know which ones. You would not need to require folks to carry.

Most of the issues we have had recently have happened in "Free Fire" zones. Nearly all of them were ended when the attacker was confronted with armed response. Many of the perps would not try it in a place where it was public knowledge that employees might be armed.

 

[Koda]

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I am against it.

And I do think it a big difference between you/me and a teacher, a lot of teachers are very attached to the kids .

Now having resource officers is a good thing.

I think were on the same page overall. I agree that some teachers can get very attached to the kids.... I have no problem with an armed teacher vehemently defending the life of our children as if their own.

I think the big thing to understand is the role of the privately armed teacher.... The same as the role of the armed citizen at the mall, or anywhere. With all the uptick in mass shootings this role has been clarified a bit: IMO of course but its not the role of the armed citizen to confront an active shooter but to defend their exit at best. I don't see how that's any different for the armed teacher who is not trained to engage an active shooter. With that in mind I don't see any safety reason to disallow teachers that chose to be armed from doing so. Get the kids to safety is what matters.

That said, I'll never fault anyone for engaging a shooter for good or bad.

 

[Koda]

Many of the perps would not try it in a place where it was public knowledge that employees might be armed.

I don't think there is any guarantee of that. The only mass shooting I know of that was specifically selected because it was a soft target was the Aurora Theater shooting.... correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I think thats the case. If I'm wrong, there is still no guarantee.

 

[Kid@Heart]

I don't think there is any guarantee of that. The only mass shooting I know of that was specifically selected because it was a soft target was the Aurora Theater shooting.... correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I think thats the case. If I'm wrong, there is still no guarantee.

I agree with you on one point- There is no guarantee.

However,

Most of the high profile "Mass Shooter" incidents over the past couple of years have happened at facilities where firearms were expressly forbidden. Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Aurora Theater, and the Washington Navy Yard are all examples of this.

Each of these attacks were carried out by an individual interested in achieving the highest body count possible, before ending their killing spree with a "Bang". (Pun intended) They specifically targeted "Gun Free Zones" to get access to the greatest number of helpless targets before being confronted by armed responders.

There is one thing that is more or less unique to each of these incidents- the motive. That is where it gets real hard to find a common thread. Most experts agree the attackers were crazy. But the attacks were pretty much all carried out for different reasons. Some for a perceived revenge against society, the Navy Yard shooter specifically targeted Officers and some just want to be famous by getting the highest score.

The thing to remember here is:

To my knowledge, every one of the incidents has ended when some form of armed response showed up. Without the armed resource officers at the Gresham high school, the young man with the concealed carry handgun at Clackamas Town Center or the Kid with the pepper spray at Seattle Pacific University I believe the outcomes would have been much, much worse.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

I would be in favor of allowing staff to be armed if they wished to take on the responsibility and expense of training and yearly qualification.

Teachers became teachers or secretaries or whatever they do in the school because they didn't want to, or could not become for some reason, police.

Mandating that school teachers take on the role of police or armed security is a lot like mandating that police officers teach English or math. For some, it'd work and for others it would be absurd.

It would be doing the school system and the students a grave disservice to just hand licenses or carry permission to teachers without offering training and yearly requals.

This isn't painting a bedroom where a beginner can lay down a tarp and do it, it's a potentially deadly enterprise that has to be deployed carefully and given every advantage to succeed from the get-go.