Should Louisiana teachers be allowed to conceal carry?

[JNieman]

By your argument, it sounds like you're suggesting an untrained individual can react just as well, so by default, training is unnecessary.

No, that's not my point at all, and not a logical extension of what I'm saying.

I'm not saying we /should/ live in the exact same way people did in 1780. I'm saying the right existed to own guns for the premise of self defense long before civilian training existed outside military, and they were quite ok with that. Keep in point... firearms training existed. It was mainly reserved for military and family target shooting, mentoring, and self-teaching - not an available public asset. So it did exist. This means it's not akin to medical advances. Medicine was not available to some, but not most... ti wasn't available as it is today to anyone.

I'm saying that despite the lack of civilian training programs, the founders and society long after, saw no reason to infringe on the rights that 'shall not be infringe'.

I'm also not saying an untrained individual can react just as well, nor did I say training is unnecessary. There's a difference between "should get" and "must get". I should people should get training if they carry a gun. I don't think they MUST get it before they're /allowed/ to carry that gun.

 

[rocketsteve]

Are you agreeing or disagreeing because I think we're both saying the same thing.

I would have to say that I'm not in total agreement with your assertion that society is totally to blame. I think government has had a lot to do with shaping our society's mindset, by picking and choosing which issues to address and which to leave alone. Gun control gives more power to the federal government than cracking-down on drunk drivers. Not to mention the fact that, if you tell a lie enough times and for a long enough period of time, at some point, people will begin to think the lie is true, i.e. the Newtown murderer is not responsible for his actions; it's about those evil guns. For most of my life, government has been slowly and systematically removing personal responsibility from the equation, and more and more people are buying-in to it. This is what has led to the sad state of modern society, not only in America, but all over the globe...

 

[Cat]

I would have to say that I'm not in total agreement with your assertion that society is totally to blame. I think government has had a lot to do with shaping our society's mindset, by picking and choosing which issues to address and which to leave alone. Gun control gives more power to the federal government than cracking-down on drunk drivers. Not to mention the fact that, if you tell a lie enough times and for a long enough period of time, at some point, people will begin to think the lie is true, i.e. the Newtown murderer is not responsible for his actions; it's about those evil guns. For most of my life, government has been slowly and systematically removing personal responsibility from the equation, and more and more people are buying-in to it. This is what has led to the sad state of modern society, not only in America, but all over the globe...

Our government is uniquely and completely by elective vote. I do think our media drives our thoughts and actions much more so than the Government. You're absolutely correct. The Government is removing rights. New York can't drink a 32oz cola. But the root cause, the people put each politician where they are today. This entire issue is a chicken and egg one. Around and around.

 

[oleheat]

FWIW, I believe the biggest argument against gun-free zones isn't whether or not maniacs are CHOOSING them- it is what always takes place there once one arrives.

It doesn't take countless studies to figure that one out.

 

[MOTOR51]

No, that's not my point at all, and not a logical extension of what I'm saying.

I'm not saying we /should/ live in the exact same way people did in 1780. I'm saying the right existed to own guns for the premise of self defense long before civilian training existed outside military, and they were quite ok with that. Keep in point... firearms training existed. It was mainly reserved for military and family target shooting, mentoring, and self-teaching - not an available public asset. So it did exist. This means it's not akin to medical advances. Medicine was not available to some, but not most... ti wasn't available as it is today to anyone.

I'm saying that despite the lack of civilian training programs, the founders and society long after, saw no reason to infringe on the rights that 'shall not be infringe'.

I'm also not saying an untrained individual can react just as well, nor did I say training is unnecessary. There's a difference between "should get" and "must get". I should people should get training if they carry a gun. I don't think they MUST get it before they're /allowed/ to carry that gun.

You are so blinded by your stance on the 2nd amendment that you do not see how dangerous it is for untrained people to confront a threat inside of a school. I think it would more harm than good for gun owners. There is a WAY greater possibility for something to go wrong than there is for a heroic stop to a school shooting


Motor51

 

[rocketsteve]

Our government is uniquely and completely by elective vote. I do think our media drives our thoughts and actions much more so than the Government. You're absolutely correct. The Government is removing rights. New York can't drink a 32oz cola. But the root cause, the people put each politician where they are today. This entire issue is a chicken and egg one. Around and around.

So then, what's the answer? You have an electorate that just voted for "Obama Claus", and they're hoping that all the promised goodies will be coming soon. And who conditioned this segment of the electorate to think that way? Politicians, who told them, for the last 50 years, that they would continue to get free stuff as long as they continued to vote for that particular politician on election day.

 

[oleheat]

You are so blinded by your stance on the 2nd amendment that you do not see how dangerous it is for untrained people to confront a threat inside of a school. I think it would more harm than good for gun owners. There is a WAY greater possibility for something to go wrong than there is for a heroic stop to a school shooting


Motor51

I think we could all agree that a school shooting is the ultimate definition of something going terribly wrong.

I understand your point- seriously, I do.

But I tend to believe when a teacher in a locked classroom is the only thing standing between a killer and a closet full of kids, a teacher with a handgun would be more likely to save some lives once that door is breeched than one who is completely defenseless. At that moment, I know which one I'd rather be.

 

[Roadhazzard]

But I tend to believe when a teacher in a locked classroom is the only thing standing between a killer and a closet full of kids, a teacher with a handgun would be more likely to save some lives once that door is breeched than one who is completely defenseless. At that moment, I know which one I'd rather be.

In all honestly I believe this is the only idea that really matters in this debate.


.

 

[MOTOR51]

I've given it as much thought as everyone else and the only reasonable thing I could come up with is a safe room in the classes. Way less liability and not terribly hard to do


Motor51

 

[OneStory]

Teachers should be allowed to concealed carry on their person without penalty.

"Maybe they should already be CC'ing..."
"But they'd lose their jobs if they used it..."
"Better unemployed than dead."

 

[bigchris]

I voted yes, i think they should.

 

[Bosco]

In all honestly I believe this is the only idea that really matters in this debate.


.

Except the counterpoints brought up that are so conveniently ignored

 

[Hattrick 22]

I think we could all agree that a school shooting is the ultimate definition of something going terribly wrong.

I understand your point- seriously, I do.

But I tend to believe when a teacher in a locked classroom is the only thing standing between a killer and a closet full of kids, a teacher with a handgun would be more likely to save some lives once that door is breeched than one who is completely defenseless. At that moment, I know which one I'd rather be.

Couldn't agree more.

I think that teachers carrying would give us perhaps an acceptable causality rate which may be what we are all after. At least it seems that way from what I've read.

 

[tim9lives]

After 9-11....the same sort of thing was being discussed, except the question was - " Do we really want to have pilots or flight attendants armed? "
Do you want to be on flight with some crazy pilot shooting wildly down an isle ?
Well.....they figured it out. The industry came up with an extensive training program and now some pilots are in fact armed. No one knows who is armed....and no one advertises wether they are or are not armed. In fact, I don't think the pilots who are armed are even allowed to advertise the fact they are carrying.
But....it works. And one reason it works is that now the bad guys are not sure if a pilot will confront them.
I personally think that is exactly what is need now. If the loony tunes shooters knew that these schools probably all have one or two armed teachers or armed supervisors on campus....I bet they would think twice.
==========
Originally Posted by tim9lives
After very extensive background checks - Yes.
But I think every school should have lots of tasers and they should also keep some of those Bear Deterrent Sprays. Those sprays shoot a 30 foot stream of pepper spray....and granted it would take guts to use it, but it's surely better than just charging an armed gunman.
JNieman
Marksman ---"You've never seen pepper spray in a crowded room have you? Whatdo you think happens when you spray a hallway with an attacker and 50 kids in it?

Taser? And if the taser is ineffective or the barbs don't connect right?

How many chances does the attacker get? Why should he be given every chance to live and kill others before someone gets to say "ok enough warnings, let's put him down" ?
Yes...I understand that spraying pepper spray down a hallway might send some kids to the hospital. It might be messy......but it sure is better than having a gunman shooting unarmed children. The pepper spray very well may buy enough time for the police to arrive. It would disorient the shooter. Heck...2 of these teachers had nothing. They charged this guy. That's gutsy. I am willing to bet that if they had pepper spray and shot it down that hallway.....it's very possible that this idiot would have been disoriented long enough for the LEO to get him before he had a chance to hurt others.

 

[lt1rx798]

So you're saying teachers who are in the classroom with those thugs every day can't "keep the peace" without a gun?


This is what I'm seeing...

Problem: There is a one in a million chance that my child will be involved in a school shooting

Solution: Arm all of the teachers

New Problem: An armed teacher is a target for thugs who know he/she is armed.

New Solution: Oh that's a hypothetical situation and doesn't matter

Am I missing anything?

I was actually refering to "keeping the peace" between her and the student who would potentially attack her. I know this wasn't the original argument, but the threat is still a possibility. Student or not, she should be able to defend herself and others.

 

[JNieman]

I've given it as much thought as everyone else and the only reasonable thing I could come up with is a safe room in the classes. Way less liability and not terribly hard to do


Motor51

History and truth says otherwise:
http://silverunderground.com/2012/07/pop-friday-ice-t-stands-up-for-gun-rights/

Based on this sample the average number of people killed by shooters apprehended by police is 18.25, but the average number of people killed by shooters apprehended by civilians is 2.2.

http://jpfo.org/pdf03/gun-control-myths-92.pdf

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...ity-2007-john-stossel-reports-on-gun-control/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1993/11/14/are-we-a-nation-of-cowards.html

In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Don Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."

For a recent anecdote about this... NYC Empire State Building "shootout"

 

[Hattrick 22]

Jnieman, as to your beliefs to the second amendment. I strongly believe in our rights to protect ourselves by any means.

I do still think the teachers should require training to conceal carry in the class rooms though and here is why. They would have to be a sales pitch to liberals and to parents for some peace of mind with knowingly allowing conceal carry in schools. It's a delicate matter so it can't be done in absolutes like you have been saying. It is a step in the right direction though but gun owners have tot have some give and take to start educating the public that has been brain washed by the media.

Your above post is some proof of this while 2% might be somewhat acceptable for accidental shootings its not going to pan over well trying to use something like that to gain the support of parents and the school board.

Like I said before it might give US a more acceptable causality rate but there is none with parents. They don't understand that even with guns being allowed on campus that is couldn't stop determined person from killing a few people. However, it would make schools less of a target rich environment and act as a deterrent against some acts of violence.

 

[Praesul Presul]

Concealed Carry should be allowed everywhere for everyone after some basic CCW training.

 

[JNieman]

Hattrick, that's an entirely reasonable request.

What I would want to see is:
State legislation allowing carry on school campus at the discretion of the school board which works with the principals and parents.
The school board voluntarily requiring staff members carrying on campus go through a particular training course.

It's my belief that /legislation/ should be the bare minimum of responsibilities, and personal/owner requirements setting the proper level so that subjective, case-by-case scenarios can be adequately applied. Like one person said, what works in urban NOLA won't be proper for Carencro. That's why you set the legislative bar low, and allow the schools to make up the proper gap. This is the same reason that "zero tolerance" legislation/rules are ineffective, illogical, and counterproductive. You can't legislate to the lowest level or else you drag the higher levels down.

 

[dawg23]

I don't think there is any proof that they choose schools because they are GFZ. I think all of them had something against the school. Armed people at school bring more problems than solutions. Can someone find a percentage on the number of schools in the US that have had a mass shooting?
Motor51

I can tell you that there were seven (7) movie theaters in the Aurora, Colorado area that were showing the Batman movie the night the maniac killed those people.

Coincidentally, he did not choose the theater closest to his home.
Coincidentally, he chose the one theater that was a gun-free zone.