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.
