Teachers carrying guns

[Chris Z]

http://www.omaha.com/article/20140105/NEWS/140109487/1685#sen-mark-christensen-s-pitch-for-arming-teachers-safer-rural-schools

The big school districts are already speaking against this, have not read the bill yet, and obviously they lack common sense.

This bill would create a Level II permit, which would require additional training before a teacher could carry a gun in a school. It requires a minimum 24 hours of training in these topics:

1) Strategies and responses in an active shooter situtation
2) weapon retention
3) effective evacuation
4) barricading and evasion
5) interacting with law enforcement in an active shooter situation
6) must demonstrate competency in a simulated active shooter situation.



What these School Administrator Geniuses don't understand, is that this is more training in this specific topic than MANY Police Officers on the street have (Especially in the smaller communities)

[HuskerXDM]

Wow what a balanced article 

I'm a teacher, CHP holder and instructor.  I'm all for allowing teachers with a CHP to carry in schools.  If I've got to take extra training so that I can defend myself at school, so be it.  I didn't see an intelligent response (except Andy's) in that article.  Kids getting ahold of an unsecured gun?!  And that from our governor?  Laughable that he thinks armed teachers will put their guns in their (unlocked, apparently) desks. 

“I would say there has been absolutely zero interest in arming teachers,” said Nancy Fulton, the association's president. “We are very opposed to having any type of gun in school.”

Well Nancy, you don't represent me.  I'm opposed to having someone bend on killing me and my students being the only one with a gun at my school. 

I'm disappointed that Sen. Christensen's bill would require teacher to have a vote of approval from the school's governing board.  State laws should be followed by any entity getting state funds... if not they should lose the funding.

[abbafandr]

Maybe if we convince the Cobra teachers could use them to protect students from mountain lions it would fly right through

[bullit]

As opinions are like belly buttons and butt holes....here's my two cents....  I adamantly OPPOSE any "special" regulations arming teachers, school personnel, etc. beyond the simple fact if one has a CHP, one should be allowed to carry on school grounds .....period.  A couple of from the hip points.....
1) For some reason people (some gun owners included) believe there is something "magical" about the physical grounds in which education occurs.  That we need to worry any more about an "unattended" gun, or some form of Ninja training is going to make one "equivalent" to a LEO and their response.  How are the "hallowed school grounds any different than a shopping mall, zoo, public parks full of kids/tweens?
2) Let's say we agreed on the random made up 24 hours of extra training.  Great.  Will there be an annual qualification to ensure retention and memory of skills? LEOs have to (and sometimes 2 x a year) and those quals are minimalist at best (Would Governor Heineman feel children were safe if the former Plattsmouth Chief of Police was guarding the schools .....some of you know what I mean).  I know a couple of educators on this forum who can far out shoot, navigate an active shooter event, exercise critical thinking during a "Critical Dynamic Incident" (like that one jthapkido ), and make me feel our children are much safer than many LEOs ( no disrespect intended). 
3) The idea of former military being up to snuff to provide security in schools is another bogus concept.  Having been a former Naval officer, shot the quals for pistol and rifle, spent a lot of my time with the Marine Corps civilians need to understand the military is designed to teach and wreak maximum destruction on the enemy.  Collateral damage is an accepted part of the equation.  I knew very few folks (most Spec Warfare) who I'd feel were up to snuff in any active shooter scenario.
4) I'm going to puke if I hear the age old reply....."we need to start somewhere, then can build on that".  Kind of like Congress extending the debt ceiling a couple of months and then fix it later on ......

[NE Bull]

I agree with you on points 1 2 and 3.  My take is if mandating the "extra" training is part of what it takes to get folks to take a serious look at this bill, I'm for it.  One of the biggest issues with Sen. Christensen's previous bill was that it was too vague. (But, at least it got people talking.)  This time the Senator has went back and did his best to answer concerns, fill in the holes so to speak.  This is such a hot topic, I would love to see it hit the floor and be properly debated.

[NE Bull]

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this article is the difference in the responses/comments on the OWH website as compared to the comments on their Facebook page.  Very telling of their subscribers / readership.
Of course some YayHoo keeps jumping in with facts and common sense and screwing up their little utopia.

[bullit]

Keep in mind the OWH hates Bo Pelini too

[whatsit]

I understand that legislation is a delicate balance, but this seems like good intentions with poor execution. Though, I will admit I'm a little ignorant about what it takes to push something like this through the unicameral, so here's some things I would be interested in knowing:

1) What is keeping us from getting the current concealed carry laws expanded to include school zones? Are we just missing enough "friends" in the legislature? Is it a matter of an uneducated populous?

2) If we support this piece of legislation (with all of the extra requirements and rules in place); in an effort to "give a little to get a little," I would like to see a long-term strategy laid out somewhere that shows how and when we plan to get what we gave, back. My point being: "compromise" when it comes to 2nd amendment issues is always a one-way street. We give, and then they come back and want more. What do we get? More rules and laws that limit and erode our rights. Calling that a "compromise" is a misnomer at best.

Anyway, I like that someone is taking some action on this issue in the legislature. The teachers and principal at my kids' school are all extremely dedicated and I have no doubt they would protect the kids any way they could. I'm a fan of giving them the right tools. I'd just like to do it in a way that doesn't "compromise" anything else.

[Don L]

Found this some good reading. Don't know if you have seen this or not. FWIW.

http://news.yahoo.com/spike-in-mass-shootings-creates-demand-for-different-police-approach-132625638.html;_ylt=A2KLOzIMH8pSgwcAmRXQtDMD

[RedDot]

I doubt OPS would ever go for this as being a CHP holder requires a sense of judgment which contradicts their insistence of policy being followed over any sort of judgment.

[David Hineline]

Guns can be available to staff just like fire extinguishers they don't have to be carried, just a locker next to each fire extinguisher with a fingerprint scanner to open with a pump shotgun inside.  One how to use fire extinguisher training day they can add 10 minutes on how to use a pump shotgun. Very little expense.

[Lorimor]

I don't believe I'm too far off course when I say the NEA is by and large, a liberal, left leaning organization.  (What political party do they primarily donate to?)  Since the core belief of any good Lefty is that everyone, who is not an agent of the state (elected or otherwise) is stupid, inept and totally incapable of sound judgement, no one should have guns, even their own union members. 

Besides, teachers don't need guns to feel like men. 

[NE Bull]

Guns can be available to staff just like fire extinguishers they don't have to be carried, just a locker next to each fire extinguisher with a fingerprint scanner to open with a pump shotgun inside.  One how to use fire extinguisher training day they can add 10 minutes on how to use a pump shotgun. Very little expense.

I kinda like that idea.

[3rdGENump]

I don't believe I'm too far off course when I say the NEA is by and large, a liberal, left leaning organization.  (What political party do they primarily donate to?)  Since the core belief of any good Lefty is that everyone, who is not an agent of the state (elected or otherwise) is stupid, inept and totally incapable of sound judgement, no one should have guns, even their own union members. 

Besides, teachers don't need guns to feel like men. 

They are a very liberal organization.  As you mentioned above they supported our beloved President. 

[HuskerXDM]

One thing I'd like to see changed in the bill is that (if it were to pass) if a school staff member were to foot the bill for the 24 hours of training and the local school board were to deny their ability to carry at school, the school board should have to reimburse the teacher for the training.

[JTH]

Guns can be available to staff just like fire extinguishers they don't have to be carried, just a locker next to each fire extinguisher with a fingerprint scanner to open with a pump shotgun inside.  One how to use fire extinguisher training day they can add 10 minutes on how to use a pump shotgun. Very little expense.

I kinda like that idea.

Mm.  I really don't....

Couple of things come to mind: 

1) In a school shooting event, the people it will most immediately affect would not have time to go get a gun. 
2) Plus, we know how well fingerprint scanners work for people under pressure....
3) Using a firearm that we know is less likely to be precise in targeting doesn't sound like a good idea.
4) Process this visual for a moment:  "we are proposing to put shotguns in lockboxes next to the fire extinguishers throughout the school" and watch the gun control folk's brains just EXPLODE.  (Okay, that's not necessarily a bad thing.)
5) I'm sorry, did someone just say that 10 minutes of training with a pump shotgun is sufficient?  Really?


Here's the thing:

We know that in active shooter situations, we need a defender with a gun immediately not only on scene, but immediately in the shooter's area.  We need a person with a gun right there, but in such a way that they aren't the first immediate target when the shooter first starts.  (Because with the element of surprise, chances are the first indicator of a problem will be the criminal's first shots.)

Thousands of people CCW in Nebraska every day, without incident.  And yet, mention a teacher carrying CCW in a classroom, and people suddenly think that all those CCWers are just hiding the fact that they take out the firearm and do gunfighter spins to impress people.  Or have shot themselves repeatedly in their ineptitude, and just covered it up.  Or drop their firearms all the time, and no one around them has noticed yet.

Right.

And extra training?  Ok, sure---but why is this necessary, other than to make people feel better?  Or do they really think that an 8-hour class one time is going to make that much of a difference?  Or maybe we should add a yearly qualification---it has worked so well for law enforcement, I'm sure that'll make all the difference.

Let's see:
1) teacher CCWing in the classroom, lots of extra training
2) teacher CCWing in the classroom, nothing extra in requirements,
3) teacher unarmed.

I realize that people think 1 is obviously the best, assuming A) it was actually good, realistic training, and B) that the teacher keeps practicing (and good luck with those if it was state-mandated), but why in the world do people seem to think that 2 is like 3, or that 2 is worse than 3? 

Let's see----CCWers in normal life have less trouble with target identification and accuracy than police officers do.  So let's put the CCWer in their own classroom that they spend 8 hours a day in, with a set of kids that they see everyday---I'm thinking we'll have even LESS problem with target identification, don't you?

Person comes into a school, and starts shooting.  I'm pretty sure that the teacher can figure out who the bad guy is---he's the guy who just stepped into their classroom and is SHOOTING THEIR KIDS.

Sure, we can try to run and hide, and count all the bodies afterward.  Or we can shoot back, because the normal CCWer can be trusted to do exactly that without extra training.  Because this is what we ALREADY do.

The only difference is that in school, it is EASIER to determine if it is a necessary and righteous act.

[bullit]

Fund raiser idea for NFOA... live Pay Per View of jthapkido debating Chambers, Ashford, et al.

[RLMoeller]

Fund raiser idea for NFOA... live Pay Per View of jthapkido debating Chambers, Ashford, et al.

   oh yeah!

[Lorimor]

Fund raiser idea for NFOA... live Pay Per View of jthapkido debating Chambers, Ashford, et al.

Rather it be an MMA style "debate."    Joking of course.  (But it would sell)

[NE Bull]

OK, I'll retract my statement, I liked the basis of the idea.  Maybe not so much as real life, but it would make a great photo.  Shotgun/ rifle mounted next to fire extinguisher behind glass that says "In Emergency- Break Glass" (with a storm shelter/ fallout shelter sign beside that for good measure)
and sub titled- "This school is prepared to do all they can to safeguard your children.

Fund raiser idea for NFOA... live Pay Per View of jthapkido debating Chambers, Ashford, et al.

I would love to see a steady flow of a diverse group of people come to a hearing  absolutely prepared to just decimate everything and anything that group could bring up.  Chambers would rattle on about the same point all day, Ashford would keep trying to cut people off and "Move Along", McGill would curl up in the corner under her blanky and cry herself to sleep, Lathrop would probably end up slithering his way out the door,  and Christensen would be ROFLAO!