NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: Lorimor on February 17, 2011, 04:53:44 PM
-
I mean really, i see the exact same arguments used by the same people who opposed CCW in Nebraska. Their predictions haven't come true yet they persist with the same doom n' gloom nattering.
Do these people REALLY think they have any credibility left? Why should anyone listen to them?
Arrogance or stupidity, I can't decide which.
-
Ignorance. Virtually everyone I've talked to about this proposal (I'm an elementary teacher and CCW permit holder) thinks this bill would allow just any teacher to carry a gun to school... that the weapon would be used for student discipline... and that modern handguns just go off at random times.... that a renegade teacher would shoot students reaching for cell phones... I'm actually embarrassed by the level of "thinking" in my coworkers. I find my most effective reply has been, "Ok, then I get to pick which Constitutional right of yours to take away..." That will usually get them to shut-up for a moment enough for me to explain what the bill actually allows, what a person has to go through to get a CCW permit, and that I would not be school security or have a pistol openly on my hip at school.
-
I feel for ya, I tried to open discussion at work also, and I just end up so frustrated over the ignorance that I just "whatever" and walk away. Folks can be so closed minded, that open debates are just impossible these days.
-
I note that they all feel it is perfectly acceptable to be protected by armed police in the schools, all the while shouting how bad it is to have a weapon in a school.
-
I've actually had two discussions about this with students in my class. I find 5th graders to be more thoughtful in their discussion than all but one of the adults I've talked to about this. Obviously, and for the record, I did not impose my viewpoint on the kids that asked about the bill, I just asked them questions to think about. For example one girl said there shouldn't be any guns anywhere. I responded, "Do you think criminals would obey a law like that?" At least they listened to my questions and understood there was another viewpoint. I also used it as an opportunity for a little history lesson on the founding of our country. I enjoyed those couple of conversations more than most lessons I teach.
-
I feel for ya, I tried to open discussion at work also, and I just end up so frustrated over the ignorance that I just "whatever" and walk away. Folks can be so closed minded, that open debates are just impossible these days.
I believe we had a discussion about this such thing and we both had the same ideas.
-
Fear ... largely fear of the unknown.
-
I thought I would give my 2 cents on this issue. I have mixed feelings on this, I feel anyone who has a permit to carry should be able to carry anywhere not just teachers. My concern is who will take the classes and who will actually carry, I dont feel that everyone who takes the classes to carry are truly prepared to pull the trigger if the need would arise and there for give the person breaking that law another firearm to continue with what the set out to do.
-
I dont feel that everyone who takes the classes to carry are truly prepared to pull the trigger if the need would arise and there for give the person breaking that law another firearm to continue with what the set out to do.
So, you don't think that everyone should be able to concealed carry if they want to? Should we have some sort of "readiness test" to see if people will actually pull the trigger? I'm not sure I understand your problem.
Of course there are some people who may not actually be able to go through with it. Does this mean they somehow lose the right to be prepared on the chance that they could?
And what does this have to do with teachers carrying? Since "some people" (a group rather undefined) might not be able to pull the trigger, no teacher should be able to continue to carry effective tools for self-defense?
I'm not trying to be snarky, here---I just really don't understand how this relates to the topic of teachers able to continue carrying while on school grounds. It sounds as if you have a problem with the topic of concealed carry in the first place, which is something else entirely.
-
When this bill was first introduced I was a little bit on the fence on wether I thought it was a good idea or not. So before I gave my opinion I did some research and talked with some administrators I know and did some reading. This is the conclusion I have come to on the topic. I am in support of this bill. What really is the differece between an average citizen that has taken the 1 or 2 day class and shot a 30 round qualification course, carring his or her firearm in the Westgate mall or Walmart or a teacher that has taken the same course and met the same requirments carrying their firearm at school.
Now could a school administration or school board require that their staff that want to carry take some kind of refresher training annually or some form of advanced training before they can carry on the school grounds, I dont think that is unreasonalbe and if a teacher or any person, for that matter, who wants to carry a firearm for protection should actively seek out advanced training and practice drills as regular as possible anyway.
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.
So I guess my point is, where is the differece between a teacher carry at school and a average citizen carrying on the street? I can't see any. Can someone enlighten me?
-
So I guess my point is, where is the differece between a teacher carry at school and a average citizen carrying on the street? I can't see any. Can someone enlighten me?
I would say that it would depend on what you think the role of an armed teacher is.
I am of the opinion (some will disagree) that armed staff would have a responsibility to provide security for themselves and the students. The training requirements should be of a higher standard than what is required for a CCW because of the added responsibility.
If you believe that the staff has no obligation to defend anyone but themselves then your right. There is absolutely no difference between them and the average citizen.
And if that is the case why are Teachers so special? Why would we support a law that singles them out for CCW on school grounds? Every CCW holder should have that right. Im sure there are plenty of Doctors, pizza delivery drivers, mechanics, city workers etc.. who would like to carry at their place of employment but are restricted also.
- Shawn
-
And if that is the case why are Teachers so special? Why would we support a law that singles them out for CCW on school grounds? Every CCW holder should have that right. Im sure there are plenty of Doctors, pizza delivery drivers, mechanics, city workers etc.. who would like to carry at their place of employment but are restricted also.
I guess my response to this would be: anywhere we can recover our Constitutional rights, we should. I totally agree it should be the same for everyone, but since it's not, we fight the battles as they come up.
I'm a teacher, and just want CCW for myself. However, if someone wanted me to get further training, I would do it because work is the only place I regularly go and can't defend myself.
-
So teachers that would want to conceal carry in school have never held a gun? I have an uncle that was a teacher and has been around guns all his life. He is totally for this. Saying that teachers don't have the experience needed may just not be true, and they are probably smart enough to know that. If they would like some situational training on top of what they know, that would be great, and how many do you think would turn it down? I would love to see that type of training for teachers done at no cost to them too. Let the teachers decide what's right for them, I'm all for them having all of the rights owed them.
-
I have an uncle that was a teacher and has been around guns all his life.
I have to chuckle everytime I hear this cause Im not sure what it is supposed to mean. I ve been around food my whole life, doesnt mean I know how to cook :)
Saying that teachers don't have the experience needed may just not be true, and they are probably smart enough to know that.
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.
- Shawn
-
Well let's confine the debate to this bill then. We would be responsible for ourselves.
-
Even SCOTUS has determined the police are under no legal obligation to protect the public.....
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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. :)
-
Yeah, what he said
-
It allows a certain class of people to defend themselves and others as they choose in school, just as they would outside.
Thats the problem. Only extending the right to carry to "certain classes of people" isnt something I can get too excited about.
Cant argue with much else that you have said.
Its absolutely a moral issue not a legal one. Im well aware that there is no law that requires you to put yourself at risk for anyone else.
Never said teachers should form into teams, move to the sound of gunfire and engage an armed assailant. But the issue of how to properly defend your classroom during a lockdown should be something pre-planned and prepared for. Again, not rocket science, but it is an added responsibility that isnt covered in a CCW class.
- Shawn
-
I know there are still teachers that care, but with the accountibilty policies in place these days, I would have to wonder if today's school faculty/staff would step-up when/ if the situation arose.
Just recently my daughter stepped on a nail in the snow at the school just before lunch. As the school could not reach her mom or step-dad, I was called and drove from Lincoln to west Omaha to pick her up, the issue I had was that the school nurse wasn't there, and they refused to pull out the nail and soak the wound. I even asked if I could authorize someone to take her to the doctor's office just down the road and I would meet them there. NO! Needles to say, my daughter spent almost 2 hours (school and doctors office) with a nail in the heel of her foot because of 'policy'? ???
Then, just yesterday, one of my son's classmates has an epileptic siezure. Her mom (who I know) was notified after 2min that they had called EMT. By the time she got there they had arrived and luckily she came around. Scary thing was, even with the educating her mom has tried to give the school, poor little girl's body was shut down for at least 5 minutes and NO CPR was attempted. :'( ??? (Hell, I work in a factory, and I'm trained as a 1st responder in first aid, CPR, and AEDs, including seizure victims).
I hate to bash teachers,etc. but some issues of late I have seen or been involved with, I'm not sure the schools would care to defend themselves/ others unless (like all this testing they do) it got them more money from the state.
-
The back and forth has been entertaining but purely acedemic I believe.
NE Bull is right. By and large your talking about a group of people who tend to be very liberal and left thinking. Obviously not all as we have several educators in this forum who are pro gun and pro CCW.
This bills chances of becoming Law are slim to none. And if it did, having a provision that each school distict would have to aprove it, what school board would allow it?
I would like an honest opinion from one of the educators following this. If this bill became law how many teachers at your place of employment would actually carry on a daily basis? Dont get me wrong, just because a small number of people would carry doesnt mean its not important for those that want to, just curious is all.
- Shawn
-
Shawn,
I work at a building with roughly 75 staff members that would be included in your hypothetical. I know that three of us would carry.
-
Shawn said:
NE Bull is right. By and large your talking about a group of people who tend to be very liberal and left thinking. Obviously not all as we have several educators in this forum who are pro gun and pro CCW.
This bills chances of becoming Law are slim to none. And if it did, having a provision that each school distict would have to aprove it, what school board would allow it?
I would like an honest opinion from one of the educators following this. If this bill became law how many teachers at your place of employment would actually carry on a daily basis?
I think the chance of this bill becoming law at this time is zero. :P And I can't think of any school board I know that would approve it for their school district.
I see this comment from many people all the time: "By and large your talking about a group of people who tend to be very liberal and left thinking." ---and one of these days I'd like to see someone actually state that from a position of knowledge, i.e. based on a study, or actual statistics. I'm not arguing it, I'd just like to know to what extent it is actually true. I have a lot of liberal coworkers. I also have a lot of conservative coworkers. So I'm curious...
I can't answer your question for my entire school district as I spend almost no time in any of the other schools, but in my particular building (out of approximately 65-70 staff members) I'd say maybe ----two.
At least one, though. :)
-
Hats off to the few of you who are commited. Sounds like a lonely club though.
I guess Ive never heard of an actual study done that would put a number on how many liberal vs. conservative teachers there are. But if you look to the types of policys put in place by most administrations, at that level at least, it seems to lean more liberal.
I think to pass a bill like this you have to sell it. You have to convince the average parent that they should support it. I think you convince them that you are more concerned with their childs safety than your own. You are the last line of defense during a lockdown and the only thing standing between their child and certain death. And your not satisfied with the states minimum requirement for obtaining a CCW permit, you will obtain extra training that directly addresses what could happen at your school.
How did the laws get changed to allow comercial pilots to carry on planes?
We needed someone armed in the cockpit to be that last line of defense. The training standards are very high and are no joke. The pilots that complete the training and earn the ability to carry onboard are well prepared. I think a bill like that would have more of a chance of actually passing.
- Shawn
-
NE Bull: You aren't bashing teachers, you are bashing medical policies... feel free to bash away. In our school health office, they refuse to pull splinters (covering them with band-aids instead) and allow children with nits (lice eggs) to remain in school until there are live lice visible.
Please keep in mind that every asinine policy you EVER run into at a school is because 1) it happened before and the school got sued or 2) a lawyer told the school they could get sued over it.
Shawn: I don't know about the liberal/conservative count either. However, keep in mind that school employees serve at will of the local school boards. It is the board that has the power to approve/dissolve all contracts with teachers. Therefore, you will not find many teachers that will step forward and give their true opinions about issues dealing with schools. More often, many teachers will either remain silent on issues (and appear to be uncaring) or will repeat the 'official' policy of the school or union so there are no repercussions.
You are unlikely to hear what teachers are really thinking on most issues. Administrators and unions? Now that's a different story (and I'm in the union, so I can say that).
-
I guess Ive never heard of an actual study done that would put a number on how many liberal vs. conservative teachers there are. But if you look to the types of policys put in place by most administrations, at that level at least, it seems to lean more liberal.
There is a significant difference between what administrations say, and what teachers think. As HuskerXDM said, teachers don't often say what they actually think---unsurprisingly, telling admin people what you really think doesn't normally work real well, particularly if admin decisions are based on emotion and lack of knowledge.
I'm not saying schools are bastions of conservatism, by any means. But what admin people say, what high school teachers say (or don't, normally), and what college professors pontificate about are often very different.
That's why I'm still interested in an actual study on this sort of thing. It does happen---
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_01_03_klein.pdf is an example.
I think to pass a bill like this you have to sell it. You have to convince the average parent that they should support it. I think you convince them that you are more concerned with their childs safety than your own. You are the last line of defense during a lockdown and the only thing standing between their child and certain death. And your not satisfied with the states minimum requirement for obtaining a CCW permit, you will obtain extra training that directly addresses what could happen at your school.
How did the laws get changed to allow comercial pilots to carry on planes?
We needed someone armed in the cockpit to be that last line of defense. The training standards are very high and are no joke. The pilots that complete the training and earn the ability to carry onboard are well prepared. I think a bill like that would have more of a chance of actually passing.
I differ in opinion in terms of "high standards" and "well prepared", but that is a topic for another day. (I'm not saying the training isn't adequate.)
I do agree that to have any chance of passing, this NE bill would have to be seriously "sold" to the public, and to do so, the people doing the "selling" would have to twist its meaning far beyond what the bill actually says to get people to start thinking instead of immediately blathering "I don't want guns near my children!"
The amusing thing is that of what you said, only the last sentence isn't true for every teacher who would carry in a school, given permission. In the case of an active shooter, a teacher does think of the students before themselves. The teacher would be the only thing standing between the students and death, and would obviously be the last line of defense.
As for extra training---well, that rather depends. Given an active shooter in the school, students in my room would move to the side away from the doors, they would be down in concealment behind my lab tables, and my door would be locked. Given that situation, there really isn't a whole lot of extra training needed. Anyone coming in would have to make it very clear that they were up to no good just to get through the door. (My walls are brick on four sides, by the way.)
I'm aware that other situations may occur. However, this doesn't change the fact that as Shawn said we aren't talking rocket science here. Barricaded defense in a room is a straightforward proposition.
Now, this is separate from whether or not I'd get extra training---I like going to training classes. (For example, I've been to one of yours, Shawn. :) ) Whether the class covers things I already know, or things that are new to me, I like having extra ideas to think about, extra drills to practice, and extra chances to hear what people are both currently thinking, and currently teaching regarding self-defense.
However, none of this is required for this situation---and it amuses me to hear people (in general) say that teachers need more training for this. ("Need" being the operative word.)
Let's see: active shooter in the school. Choice is a 1) armed teacher with extra training, 2) an armed teacher with basic training, or 3) unarmed victims. Of course we'd pick #1, given that choice---but why in the world do people seem to think that #2 isn't any better than #3?
C'mon, folks. People carry in public in the midst of crowds of people they don't know, in areas they are not familiar with, and are expected to handle it just fine. And they do.
Teachers, on the other hand, have less-crowded situations wherein they easily recognize the people around them, know their area and surroundings, and where it will be obvious if someone is a bad guy. Where did this "oh, they must have more training!" stuff come from?
Regarding medical policies, among other school policies---as HuskerXDM said, remember that the school board and the administration makes the rules. Teachers don't get asked what they think.
-
Let's see: active shooter in the school. Choice is a 1) armed teacher with extra training, 2) an armed teacher with basic training, or 3) unarmed victims. Of course we'd pick #1, given that choice---but why in the world do people seem to think that #2 isn't any better than #3?
C'mon, folks. People carry in public in the midst of crowds of people they don't know, in areas they are not familiar with, and are expected to handle it just fine. And they do.
Teachers, on the other hand, have less-crowded situations wherein they easily recognize the people around them, know their area and surroundings, and where it will be obvious if someone is a bad guy. Where did this "oh, they must have more training!" stuff come from?
That's one of the best arguments for school carry I've ever seen.
-
Teachers don't get asked what they think.
Well, we kinda do... but it's like this: "We think this would be ridiculous! Don't you?"