General Categories > Laws and Legislation
So are the opponents of school carry arrogant or just plain stupid?
bullit:
Even SCOTUS has determined the police are under no legal obligation to protect the public.....
DaveB:
I think that arming teachers would be more of a deterrent than anything else. The possibility of being stopped makes it a lot less appealing.
I'm glad you get a chuckle Shawn, that shows a lot on your end too.
JTH:
Regarding what sjwsti thinks about training for teachers in school, and whether they possibly have it or not:
--- Quote from: sjwsti on February 23, 2011, 08:23:55 PM ---Unless they have had active shooter training or were involved in a previous career that involved that type of training how would they? Its certainly not rocket science but its not intuitive either.
And that brings us back to what do you think they are responsible for? Themselves and the students or just themselves.
--- End quote ---
You do realize the logical problem with your belief, right? A teacher in school has _exactly_ the same level of responsibility to protect the students in the school whether they are armed or not---which is very similar, in many ways, to what any citizen has anywhere else---that is, there is no legal requirement if there is a danger to themselves inherent in action.
The "no legal requirement" is similar, as some have mentioned, to police officers and their duty to the public.
Whether there is a moral requirement is something different. And whether or not a teachers chooses to act even in the face of said danger is something different. But there is no legal requirement.
And I'll note that in the case of an active shooter, there is a significant difference between a teacher defending a room full of children, and an officer who enters the school to stop the shooting.
After all, a LEO active shooter response is rather significantly different than a barricaded defensive position, now isn't it?
(Oh---and I _have_ practiced active shooter scenarios in a professional training atmosphere. Among other things. And yet---none of those in any way have anything to do with my responsibilities as a teacher if I happen to be armed in my classroom, with my students, in the case of an active shooter in the school.)
There seems to be a strong idea here that allowing teachers to do at school exactly what they do everywhere else somehow turns them into an armed security force.
This is not true. It is not the point of the bill, and it is not at all what is proposed. And yet, we hear commentary from people about how suddenly a different level of training, or responsibility, etc, is somehow required.
An armed citizen carries tools to defend themselves, and (by their choice, given different situations) others. This bill allows certain armed citizens one more place in which they may do this, under the exact same rules (and laws) as anywhere else.
How in the world does this correspond to any other level of responsibility or training?
By the way---if your answer is "if they are armed, they should be MORE responsible!" then you really need to think about what you mean. Are you saying teachers aren't responsible enough regarding their student's well-being? Or are you saying that because they carry a gun, now they have additional responsibilities somehow?
The bill is simple. It doesn't created an armed educational-faculty security force. It does not create an in-school policing force, nor does it create a "special team" to react against active shooters.
It allows a certain class of people to defend themselves and others as they choose in school, just as they would outside.
How is this a problem?
And yes, it would be nice if everyone who is legal to CCW could do this. But this isn't going to happen in the near future. So why don't we give it a shot so that at least _someone_ is around if the worst occurs?
JTH:
--- Quote from: bugsdad on February 23, 2011, 02:17:08 PM ---The school administrators that I have talked to are against having their staff carry a firearm. They would rather have police officers or a private security officer ( who are mostly retired cops anyway) be the only ones on the property that are armed. Granted they are going to have a much higher level of training and a little better odds of hopefully ending a situation peacefully, however if a student, or disgruntled employee or just a plain old maniac , is hellbent on shooting the place up, then talking isn't going to do a lot of good.
--- End quote ---
This would surprise me greatly, actually. (The part in italics.)
It is true that there are plenty of officers who are highly trained, both in de-escalation techniques, and handgun skills. This, however, doesn't change the fact that by far the majority of police officers are not. (And especially not highly trained in both.)
This is not a dig at police officers, by the way. I've worked with a lot of LEOs, and I respect both the people who choose that career, and what they try to do. This doesn't change the fact that many police officers are not skilled with firearms, nor are they conversant with the physical and verbal actions that result in the de-escalation of a situation.
Teachers, on the other hand, get daily practice at de-escalation techniques. :) (I know, I know, it is different, and I'm kidding about this part---but only a little. Teachers HAVE to be good at defusing tension, adjusting moods, and directing attention and conversation.)
And some are pretty good shots, too.
But again---this bill isn't about teachers being a security force, so I think this point isn't relevant anyway. :)
HuskerXDM:
Yeah, what he said
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version