Regarding what sjwsti thinks about training for teachers in school, and whether they possibly have it or not:
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.
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?
