Interested in helping to promote CCW to someone of influence?

[shawnzie101]

Hey there fellow firearm enthusiasts! I'm currently in a masters program for secondary education and one of my professors (who is not a gun fan) has a fair amount of influence with the legislature here in WA state. We have been assigned a fairly open paper regarding controversial school issues and I've chosen the issue of teachers being able to carry at their school.

I will be honest this class has definitely gotten the back burner and although I'm tempted to do a quick paper on standardized testing or something of that nature I don't want to let this opportunity pass by. I'm not asking for anyone to write the paper for me since I'm more than capable. However, it would be extremely helpful for you guys to share some of your best articles, statistics, or legislation here so that I can provide the best data possible. (lets be honest there is a ton of BS stuff out there both pro and anti gun) Therefore unbiased and well established sources work best.

I will be focused on presenting both sides of the argument for teachers to be able to carry on campus. WA state had a failed bill HB-1788 which I will be discussing as well as similar legislation in Texas, Utah, and South Dakota. I believe the best approach will be to give some statistics on the responsible nature of CCW holders and my personal mindset and experience while carrying. I think the biggest point of influence can be delivered by showing the little training police officers actually receive regarding firearms since public perception is that LEOs are highly trained and that teachers could never be on their level.

If you have anything on hand that could be valuable please share it here. I'd be happy to follow this up by posting my paper.

Cheers!

Read More

 

[osterr1999]

Use John Lott's information. He is a very credible source. Below is a link to his book.

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics): John R. Lott Jr.: 9780226493633: Amazon.com: Books

 

[corvus]

David Grossman (author of On Killing) has an <broken link removed> . In it, he makes this statement:

If they still choose your site as their target ... you must respond quickly and forcefully. An analysis of active shooter incidents by co-Author Richard Fairburn suggests that even a Rapid Deployment team is unlikely to assemble in time to save lives.(1) In most incidents, the only chance available to save lives is an instant response by on-scene personnel or the first arriving officer.

He later says:

Armed security in your school will go far to deter an attack, but if an attack comes, these officers may be the first to be targeted.

You could use the research by Richard Fairburn, combined with the fact that uniformed security will be the first targeted in a surprise attack, as the basis of the argument for armed teachers (e.g., un-uniformed security). With the correct training, certification, annual testing/re-cert, etc. that anything school-related will require, having some number of armed teachers in schools could go a long way to prevent attacks.

The last two useful points I'd add:

1. As Grossman says, we take many, many steps to prevent and to respond effectively to fires, so why not school shootings?

2. Any effective security is security in depth or in layers, and a trained CCW licensee would be an effective final layer of security.

Hell, offer the option for LEO-grade training time and certification, as well as advanced first aid/EMT certification, as options for continuing education hours and you'll have plenty of no-cost-to-the-district in-house security and emergency care folks.

 

[GuyBMeredith]

The first point to make is that laws prohibiting concealed carry by licensed persons--including teachers--is a solution in search of a problem.

Laws should be written to solve a definable problem and should have provable connection to a solution of that problem, ie, banning cars does not prevent arson.

The reality is that there is no history of concealed firearms carry by vetted, licensed people is any problem or actually presents a danger except in the bigoted minds of nay sayers.

You can point out the reality that victims of violent crimes are the true first responders. Anyone else is likely to be the clean up crew. This was demonstrated in Columbine where the campus guard was late to the game.

One red herring is the idea that an additional shooter would just cause more injuries or deaths. Standard pablum is to assume all firearms owners are stupid as bricks. Don't mind that a concealed carry holder in the mall shooting held off for that reason--that doesn't become a talking point. However, a good barricade plan with the teacher manning the barricade can be quite effective. One victim had something to say about this.

“Now, understand, I know what a lot of people think, - they think, - 'Oh, my God, then you would have had a gunfight and then more people would have been killed.' Unhunh, no, - I was down on the floor - this guy is standing up - everybody else is down on the floor - I had a perfect shot at him - it would have been clear, I had a place to prop my hand - the guy was not even aware of what we were doing...

Let me make a point here, in case this isn't becoming extremely clear. My state has gun control laws. It did not keep Hennard from coming in and killing everybody! What it did do, was keep me from protecting my family! That's the only thing that cotton pickin' law did! OK! Understand that! That's - that's so important!"

--Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp testifying on the slaughter of her parents and twenty- one others at Luby's Restaurant