David Shepard against arming teachers

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The gun free zone is where these people go, knowing they won't meet resistance, just to go out in some statement, with others

being forced to go out with them. How many times do we see this go without this factor? Besides, not all areas need anything at

all to accomplish this. You go pay for the guards. That's fine, but until you show a uniform threat in a large area, there is no need

to do this. This argument about placing guards in every school is not the answer, just more expense, and overkill, in my opinion.

 

"Statement" being some kind of mental incapacity never approaching reality.

[DaveTN]

Except statistics don't seem to back up your thoughts on an SRO being safer and 'better trained', than your average citizen.  And while they may receive more training than your average citizen, the effectiveness of that training is suspect at best.
 
Police Officers are 5 times more likely to kill an innocent person in a justified shooting over 'untrained' citizens, 11% vs 2%.
 
Police Officers are significantly more likely to be convicted of a crime per capita than teachers, or even the population as a whole, much much higher than your average CC permit holder.
 
Further a single SRO is a very limited resource, where as arming teachers and CC permitted parents gives you much better coverage in the case of an attack vs a single "well trained" police officer.
 
I'd much rather have 20 adults carrying in a school, than 1 SRO, and it would be safer for the children.

The average citizens are moving away from the threat while the cops are moving towards it. What’s that do to your statistics?

[JayC]

Your statement appears not match the facts....

 

The very fact that a teacher or parent could be armed is a serious threat that will cause crazy's to focus on softer targets...  This is proven by the fact you don't see mass shootings at locations that aren't gun free zones, or in states where teachers or students *might* be armed.  

 

Look at crime here in TN, vs crime in the UK...  The VAST majority of break ins here in TN happen when nobody is home, criminals don't break into occupied homes because of the high risk of getting shot by the home owner.  You look at the UK, nearly 50% of break ins happen when somebody is home, because the criminals there have little to worry about from unarmed victims.

 

Finally, a single point of failure is never a good choice for security...  You want security in depth, and in the case of protecting students that is placing as many responsible armed adults in the school as possible.

 

I'm positive here in TN, we could recruit enough armed parents/permit holders to provide security for every school free of charge if we'd just ask.

 

And, if no one volunteers?  What if the teacher just wants to be a teacher and not an armed guard?  What if the armed teacher decides not to engage the shooter, trusting that someone else will?

 

A conspicuous, uniformed, armed security guard (job description "Guard", not 'Teacher") in a school fills the need much better than a volunteer teacher, in my opinion.

 

 

[JayC]

There are a lot of reasons why police officers have such a high rate of hitting and killing innocents...  A lot of it is because they rush in and have to make quick judgments without knowing exactly who the good and bad guys are...  part of it is poor training, and part of it is a lack of civil liability, among a number of other factors.

 

But, it doesn't change the fact that police officers with "better training" are much more likely to shooting and kill innocents than your average untrained citizen.

 

Even if you take that fact out of the situation, you're almost always going to have better security with more armed good guys, than with a single expert good guy.  

 

Nobody is suggesting that police officer wouldn't still respond, or maybe have an SRO along with volunteers...  Only that volunteers who are armed is the only cost effective way to provide the level of security to deter these types of attacks on our children at school.  And that armed citizens aren't that serious of a threat to the safety of children, compared to police officers.

 

And you can design a program to help better train those teachers and parents (on a voluntary basis) and to build cooperative training between those armed citizens and law enforcement departments.  How many of us would pass up free or near free range time and training with local police departments?  How many would pay for the privilege (to cover cost) to get better training in how to handle active shooter environments?

 

I'm saying that for the cost of a single SRO, most departments could provide training, and guidance, to teachers and volunteers in all of their schools.  And the level of protection these volunteer programs would provide would be much better than a single SRO in every school.

 

The average citizens are moving away from the threat while the cops are moving towards it. What’s that do to your statistics?

[Guest 270win]

How about Tennessee provide those with a handgun carry permit an exemption just like hunter ed instructors and school shooting teams get for having guns at schools in TN?  That would be the easiest and most simple solution.

 

Mississippi just did it a couple years ago for those with an 'enhanced permit' (which is basically like our regular permit because a regular MS permit requires NO training).  So why can't we have the same carry rights as people in MS when we have the same qualification?

Edited January 22, 2013 by 270win

[Guest 6.8 AR]

An exemption might work, but the gun free zone is still the problem. It needs to go!

[Chucktshoes]

An exemption might work, but the gun free zone is still the problem. It needs to go!

The "Only Ones" will never go for that.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, now that's a good point. :D

[Guest 270win]

If TN had a law giving an exemption to those with permits on school property, it would be legal under the federal gun free zones law.  A permit is an exemption federally to the fed gun free school zones act.

 

We just need to get a clean law passed that will provide that exemption.  Why should someone who has a permit be a criminal with a gun in his pocket at a school, but is not a criminal when at Kroger?  What is the difference?

[m16ty]

I was talking to a friend of mine at Craker Barrel the other night. He's kind of on the fence about arming teachers. I asked him if he thought there were any armed people at Cracker Barrel, he said there would probably be several. He didn't mind taking his kids to Cracker Barrel that night.

 

Why people think it's ok for there kids to be around HCP holders in just about every other public place but don't want them to be around them in schools blows my mind. I just don't understand why somebody thinks "a good guy with a gun" in a school is so scary.

 

If nothing else, at least arm the willing principles.

 

 

I've also heard the arguement that they are afraid a kid my find out where the teacher hides the gun and take it. I suspect most teachers are smart enough to keep the gun on their person and not just thrown into a desk drawer.

[mikegideon]

In TN, can't they just deputize somebody to get past the gun free zone BS? All they need is a seperate license for armed teachers. Pass the qualifications and give them limited LE status under the sheriff.

[Will H]

There is a trust element that I am not comfortable with when it comes to teachers carrying firearms.  

The bulk of liberals believe the exact same thing about you.

[Will H]

We all are responsible to make it as safe for our kids as we can. But they need social interaction outside the home to develop the social skills they will need to get by in the world and the workplace. If they get in a bad situation they need to be able to work it out; not start crying for mommy and daddy.

I also believe there are people out there that have the intelligence and ability to home school their kids; unfortunately I think they are few and far between. I only know a few people that home school their kids and those poor kids don’t have a chance of functioning very well in society.

 

We are homeschooling our 5 year old starting next year.  Her social interaction will come from a local loose "club" of families that homeschool.  See, we are in the 21st century now, and there are other ways to find people outside the home than just public schools.  She will also get additional social interaction from church, the martial arts class she is starting next year, and eventually girl scouts and 4H.  I don't think her reaction to issues will be to cry for mommy and daddy.

 

Given you seemed to have appointed yourself the judge of the required intelligence to home school do we need to send you an application for approval?

 

I do not feel the gun free zones are going away anytime soon, and even if they do I do not think that our public educational system is going to dramatically improve over the next few years.  Homeschooling will allow us to focus on areas she has trouble with and yet allow her to expand beyond her grade level in areas she shows ability.  It's a flexibility that schools do not have.  We can also take her out into the woods to learn about the real world outside of modern society in addition to text books and online resources.

 

Homeschooling is going to be a challenge living on a single income at the bottom end of middle class, but these are the sacrifices that built this country.  This modern both parents have to work outside the home society makes me sick.  I realize that price forces a lot of it, but there is a lot of "doing without" that people could be doing too in my opinion.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Will H

[JayC]

Yes, a reserve deputy/officer program, or even a 'special deputy' commission would allow departments to bypass current gun free zones.

 

But, why would a department do that if they can get more deputies paid for out of our hard earned tax dollars, which means more Sgt's and Lt's to run those deputies...  Remember that most departments in TN are unionized.

 

The only reason we have POST certification is to increase the paychecks of unions, and schools that teach the POST certification. 

 

It's also the reason we see very few reserve programs around the state, because unpaid volunteers threaten the unions.  We should get back to very small full time departments with a lot more volunteers.

 

In TN, can't they just deputize somebody to get past the gun free zone BS? All they need is a seperate license for armed teachers. Pass the qualifications and give them limited LE status under the sheriff.

Edited January 23, 2013 by JayC

[mikegideon]

Yes, a reserve deputy/officer program, or even a 'special deputy' commission would allow departments to bypass current gun free zones.

 

But, why would a department do that if they can get more deputies paid for out of our hard earned tax dollars, which means more Sgt's and Lt's to run those deputies...  Remember that most departments in TN are unionized.

 

The only reason we have POST certification is to increase the paychecks of unions, and schools that teach the POST certification. 

 

Why? Because they care about solving the problem? The funding is there, or it isn't. I think every SO in the country has felt tight budget restraints.

[JayC]

So why doesn't every county in the state have a reserve deputy program then?  It's very low cost to setup, and in most counties they could place a reserve deputy in every patrol car with a full time deputy...  That sure would make things safer wouldn't it?  Just from a stance of vehicle accidents and basic backup you'd think every department would start up a reserve program...  but they don't...  while at the same time complaining to the county board they need more money for more full time deputies and officers.

 

Why? Because they care about solving the problem? The funding is there, or it isn't. I think every SO in the country has felt tight budget restraints.

 

 

[Guest 270win]

We have reserves in Shelby County.  I do not know if Shelby County gives out special deputy cards anymore.

[Caster]

I don't wanna insult any teachers but it'd be easier to train an SRO to teach than to train a teacher to engage a hostile enemy.  

Now I'm not saying an SRO could teach physics or anatomy and physiology but hell, anyone can be a gym teacher.  If your SRO isn't in good enough shape to teach gym, then that person shouldn't be an SRO!  Pay them to mop up hurl and lung butter.  Empty the trash.  Have them teach some lame subject like Agriculture or equally low tech subject.  Teacher's aid, hall monitor, whatever. Double duty would enable the budget to pay them MORE and the more you pay an SRO the more that person will stick with the job.  

[m16ty]

I don't wanna insult any teachers but it'd be easier to train an SRO to teach than to train a teacher to engage a hostile enemy.  

Now I'm not saying an SRO could teach physics or anatomy and physiology but hell, anyone can be a gym teacher.  If your SRO isn't in good enough shape to teach gym, then that person shouldn't be an SRO!  Pay them to mop up hurl and lung butter.  Empty the trash.  Have them teach some lame subject like Agriculture or equally low tech subject.  Teacher's aid, hall monitor, whatever. Double duty would enable the budget to pay them MORE and the more you pay an SRO the more that person will stick with the job.  

 

That would be fine too. The end result would still be a armed teacher.

 

I don't care how they get there but a certain amount of teachers at each school need to be armed. I'm not saying they would replace the SRO but compliment them.