Guns in public schools?

[SFC JeffJ]

This benefit is simply to allow a level of preparedness in case something did
happen.

Jeff

 

[Cruentus]

Kacey posted some good statistics and figures.

All examples of stats. that could be reduced or prevented if more law abiding citizens weren't stripped of their carry rights in schools and other places.

Nice job!

 

[Grenadier]

You may want to take those reports with many grains of salt, especially considering that some of the references borrow heavily from the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, aka another rabid wing of the Brady Campaign. Yes, the same organization that includes 24 year old adults in their "children" category.

If you wanted an honest appraisal of the threat posed by law-abiding firearms owners who are eligible to carry concealed firearms, I strongly doubt that you're going to find any significant population in those figures.

Again, attempting to claim that law-abiding firearms owners who lawfully carry concealed firearms, are responsible for the commission of crimes, is akin to trying to blame people who lawfully take painkillers versus those heroin junkies. You're looking at two different types of people. Banning narcotic-based pain killers isn't going to stop heroin junkies.

Again, I will say from my 13 years of experience as a teacher, I see no purpose in allowing guns in schools. I ask you to consider the following statistics:

40 -The number of people (including some adults) that were shot and killed in school during the academic year, 1997-98. 11 -The number of children shot and killed in Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; and Springfield, Oregon.

None of which were committed by a law-abiding gunowner who had the proper permits to carry. Such homicides were performed by criminals, who were ineligible to own firearms anyways. Children are ineligible for firearms permits, keep in mind.

8 -The number of children who die from gunfire every day.(7)

This grossly inflated number includes gangbangers of age 18-24 who aren't in school, and kill each other in shootouts. Criminals will kill each other, regardless of what laws are in place, and trying to lump law-abiding firearms owners in with them is irrelevant.

I'm not going to bother with the rest, since there is still no proof at all, that law abiding firearms owners who have permits to carry, are the cause of these child deaths. Instead, the only things that are listed are from the actions of people who are not amongst the law-abiding people with valid carry permits.

The original debate was about whether or not law abiding firearms owners who have permits to carry, should be allowed to carry in schools. They have already passed several background checks, and as a whole, aren't the type to cause trouble. Again, keep in mind, that children are ineligible for such permits.

On the other hand, criminals are criminals, because they break the law. No amount of legislation that attacks the law-abiding will affect criminals.

 

[KenpoTex]

Grenadier, good post.

If a stat comes from the Brady bunch, you can pretty much assume that it's either over-inflated, or outright false.

 

[arnisandyz]

The fact that their hasn't been an epidemic in Florida of erronious shootings points to the fact that skill level doesn't need to be State mandated. People simple need to be held responible for their actions. As in Law Enforcement circles, you will always have people who "shouldn't carry," people who are highly skilled, and people in between.

It's not about skill, it's about rights.

I'm all for rights. Take Freedom of Speech for example. I believe people should be allowed to speak freely without censorship...but it doesn't mean I want my 6 year old daughter exposed to it. Although more of a privledge, take driving, there are alot of people on the road that shouldn't be driving, yet they are legally licensed to do so. They have a right to be on the road, they may drive through my daughter's school crossing, I can't do anything about it, but I am concerned as a parent. I guess thats where my indifference comes from. When you have a little one, protecting them becomes the most important thing in your life. My daughter is well trained, like me she is being raised in a firearm friendly household. But what about the other kids?

 

[Cruentus]

I'm all for rights. Take Freedom of Speech for example. I believe people should be allowed to speak freely without censorship...but it doesn't mean I want my 6 year old daughter exposed to it. Although more of a privledge, take driving, there are alot of people on the road that shouldn't be driving, yet they are legally licensed to do so. They have a right to be on the road, they may drive through my daughter's school crossing, I can't do anything about it, but I am concerned as a parent. I guess thats where my indifference comes from. When you have a little one, protecting them becomes the most important thing in your life. My daughter is well trained, like me she is being raised in a firearm friendly household. But what about the other kids?

I can see your point of view. But once again, it is an emotionally based one (concern for your child) not a logical one.

Logically speaking, if law abiding people were allowed to carry on school property, provided that it had to be concealed and on the person, then there wouldn't be a problem. As it has been shown so far in Utah, some people legally carry concealed in schools and it doesn't even effect anyones day. Logically speaking, you can't account for that 1 and a 1,000 a-hole that would go driving through a school crossing, or who would abuse their carry privelages, no matter how strict you try to make the laws. The best we can do is educate people, respect individual rights, and penalize those who abuse those rights and cause problems.

But, I think you know all that...

 

[Cruentus]

I'm all for rights. Take Freedom of Speech for example. I believe people should be allowed to speak freely without censorship...but it doesn't mean I want my 6 year old daughter exposed to it.

These are different issues. You have a right to censor what your daughter is exposed too. Carrying concealed in a school where the child wouldn't see it has nothing to do with "exposing our children to guns." In other words, it is not the same as swearing in the school, or something like that. Plus, you know where your censorship rights begin and end. You can censor what your child watches on TV, and what is said in your house. But you can't censor what someone says in a public place. But you can only frequent places where the people at that place are kid friendly, and don't tolerate inappropriate behavior and language around kids.

But once again, different issue.

 

[arnisandyz]

I can see your point of view. But once again, it is an emotionally based one (concern for your child) not a logical one.

Logically speaking, if law abiding people were allowed to carry on school property, provided that it had to be concealed and on the person, then there wouldn't be a problem. .

Damnit Spock!!!....reminds me of the old StarTrek episodes when Spock would comment on how "highly illogical" some of the Captain Kirks decisions were. If we were to let machines based on logic make all the decisions for us, I think it would be a much different world than it is today. We're humans, humans have emotions that should be factored into logical decisions.

Take for example, risking your life so others can live. Giving up one life to save hundreds is a logical decision. However, when that one life is your own or a loved one and if the hundreds you may save are people you know or don't know. it makes it more complicated, doesn't it?

 

[Cruentus]

Damnit Spock!!!....reminds me of the old StarTrek episodes when Spock would comment on how "highly illogical" some of the Captain Kirks decisions were. If we were to let machines based on logic make all the decisions for us, I think it would be a much different world than it is today. We're humans, humans have emotions that should be factored into logical decisions.

Take for example, risking your life so others can live. Giving up one life to save hundreds is a logical decision. However, when that one life is your own or a loved one and if the hundreds you may save are people you know or don't know. it makes it more complicated, doesn't it?

A Vulcan cannot compute such issues.

 

[Ceicei]

I thought about creating a new thread, but this article fits here in this thread. I'll post the link for your perusal.
*************
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650198346,00.html

More than a dozen teachers and public school employees will spend part of their UEA weekend in a classroom — learning how to use a gun. Clark Aposhian is offering a free class today to public school employees seeking to get their concealed- weapons permit.

*************
Note:

Utah is one of the few states that people with Concealed Weapons Permit can carry their guns upon public school properties. UEA (Utah Education Association) is holding a convention during the long weekend for teachers/administrators to increase their educational development. It is also the weekend that kids are off school. The weekend runs October 12-October 16 with school resuming October 17.

- Ceicei

 

[Ceicei]

No comments on my post before this one? I guess people agree with it....

- Ceicei

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Personally, I think it's a great idea. Kinda like allowing airline pilots that want to be armed access to a weapon.

Jeff

 

[Cruentus]

No comments on my post before this one? I guess people agree with it....

- Ceicei

Well...sort of...

The argument that school staff should be allowed the right to carry because it is not only their self-defense at stake but that of their students is a very good one.

I like that Aposhain offered free training, and emphasized that he doesn't agree with teachers roaming the halls looking for intruders or becoming Law Enforement officers; just that they have the training to protect themselves and others in their area if the threat is immediate.

I also agree with idea that guns should NOT be allowed to be put in desk drawers and closets and such. They should be on the person, or properly locked in a vehicle or at home. No in between, because that is how accidents happened. This is really no different then the average person who carries at their workplace or in public places; you should never leave your firearm unattended unless it is properly secured (as in locked), with rare exceptions. So this should definitaly be no different then in a school. And penalties for such an act (which most people won't violate, mind you) should be severe due to the fact that you are in a school; in other words, loss of concealed carry privilages.

I can see the misconceptions fostered by members of the UAE in the article. First of all, allowing law abiding citizens to carry, whether in a school or elseware, does not pose "too much of a risk." If that were true, then there would be countless incidents of accidental and erronious shootings due to Concealed Pistol Carrying, of which there is not. The accidents and erronious shootings that do occur are due to irrresponsible behavior mutually exclusive from those who concealed carry. The majority of those who have permits don't have accidents or problems. You can also see the straw man hypotheticals, like, "what's to stop a student or someone from taking the gun away?" Again, there is no epidemic of CPL/CCW holders having their guns taken away from them. The only people having their guns taken from them on rare occasions, ironically, are cops. This is due to certain dynamics of their job that teachers and most CPL/CCW holders don't encounter. Even with cops, though, the numbers of "guns being taken away" are low.

This brings me to my last point....

Obligating school staff to carry weapons to defend our children is a dangerous mistake....

The UAE has the right to disagree with carry in schools, they just don't have the right to try to make it illegal or against policy. That said, I don't think the UAE should be involved in this issue at all. Teachers are not law enforcement. I am not so sure that the UAE should be spending time on staff development weekends teaching firearms tactics, as the article implied ("More than a dozen teachers and public school employees will spend part of their UEA weekend in a classroom — learning how to use a gun").

Teachers need the right to carry at work, but only because that is an individual right that needs to be maintained. But school should not be seen or treated as a warzone either. Their job is the teaching and development of kids. Their right and responsibility as a citizen is to carry and be able to defend themselves. We should not be arming our teachers as a means to fight school shootings and terrorism; we should simply be allowing them the rights to choose to be armed safely if they want that responsibility. The issues of school violence needs to be fought at home (parents), in schools with astute teachers and counsolers and social workers trained to recognize and treat "problem" kids, and all of the wonderful preventative measures that our teachers have been improving on each year, with each staff development meeting and conference. Our teachers deserve respect and admiration in that in such a violently driven society, with the media and TV and all the socio-economic factors, they have been able to reduce school violence as a whole through important holistic and preventative measures. That is why teachers signed up for their jobs; not to police our kids but to nurture and educate. That is where the focus of UAE or school district sponsered training sessions should be.

I think it is good that certain groups are willing to offer free training to school staff, and that this issue is addressed. It is even good to hold some of these training sessions safely in the schools after hours (air soft simulations and scenarios and such). But these should be extra ciricular activities that staff CAN organize and participate in IF THEY WANT TO. I think that it is important that school staff maintains their right to carry. However, I think that we get into a dangerous slippery slope if we mandate or obligate teachers to carry as a means to police or defend our kids. Teachers have enough responsibility and stress as it is; so we need to respect their rights to carry or choose not to carry, and allow them to do what they do best, which is nurture and educate.

Paul

 

[KenpoTex]

This one doesn't really have anything to do with guns, but I think it fits in with the idea that we're discussing:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15253321/

 

[Cruentus]

This one doesn't really have anything to do with guns, but I think it fits in with the idea that we're discussing:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15253321/

Oh my....

O.K., here is what I think, and I am guessing that people will disagree:

This is exactly what I mean about treating schools like they are war zones. If the media portrayal in that link is accurate, then I can't see this as a good thing. Here is why...

1. I am not an expert in child development and psychology, but from what I understand, kids in general don't have the ability to proportionalize reality the same way that adults can. An adult, for example, can watch a fictional movie on serial killers, read a book on serial killers, and watch a TV special on serial killers in the same week and objectively or instinctively realize that even though that at that moment the idea of "serial killers" is taking up a large proportion of his/her life, serial killers aren't hiding in every nook and cranny of their lives. A kid, on the other hand, can't make those distinctions. Mass media and our own mesmorization presents violence in a disproportionate way. Most people can manage to get through their lives without being involved in a shooting, or a slaying of some sort; but if you believed that TV, newspapers, and video games represented reality proportionally, then you wouldn't think that you couldn't walk down the street without being killed.

But as adults, we realize that violence is represented disproportionately; but do kids? Some studies that I am familiar with imply that they don't. Even if they logically realize in their young heads that violence is over-represented, they still become desensitized, and violent solutions become more viable to them.

The boogyman for kids is no longer Washington Irving's headless horseman that kids can spook each other and giggle over because they know that there is no real threat. The new boogyman is a terrorist with a bomb or boxcutter, a neighbor who kidnaps and eats his victims, or a kid just like them lurking through the hallways with a shotgun. And to them, this boogyman is real. And even though the statistical probability of being shot up in a school or attacked is very low, the idea disproportionately consumes their lives.

This is not healthy. It blurs the lines of morality and misrepresents reality, because when "everyone" seems to be using violence as viable solutions to everyday problems, then this can make very obviously maladaptive and violent behaviors seem reasonable.

Having school wide training sessions, and other methods of investing district wide time and energy to solutions disproportionate to a threat adds to the problem rather then the solution.

#2. This sort of thing is a knee jerk reaction based on fear by adults who are most likely seperated from the reality of violence. They hear of a school shooting epidemic, and they have a collective panic attack. People panic in different ways, and most of these ways are maladaptive rather then adaptive. Many folks might go through denial, for example. Some anti-gun folks percieving themselves as powerless, might project their fear by enforcing their powerlessness on others, for another example. In this case, these folks seem to be overreacting as their defense. Proverbally, they are afraid of that elephant they have never seen but have only heard about, so they are ready to hit it with a nuclear missle rather then a large caliber rifle.

#3. Because of this knee-jerk reaction as described above, they are way out of the realm of a viable solution to school violence because they are overcompensating.

Sure...in THEORY, a handful of 6th graders and a teacher could stop a lone gunman. But once that gunman starts blowing holes into kids, and kids and teachers see the insides of their friends, their co-workers, and people that they know and love being ****ing sprayed accross the tiles, that strategy will likely change very quickly, regardless of training.

Our US infantry men, the best trained in the world, have a substantial rate of failure due to hesitation and combat stress among their ranks. A certain small percentage are unable to fire, period. Most will fire, but there is an entire science of warfare, and months of disciplined training that enables that. And even then, the first time for a soldier in a firefight is often a disasterous endeavor, as they don't perform like their training makes them think that they would. They make it through due to their team members, tactics, and firepower. After one or a few experiences, they are then able to perform well under combat conditions. And remember, it is a smaller percentage of our military that are elite and are out there able to perform well under stressful, close quarter, violent situations. Most don't and wouldn't take the infantry jobs to begin with to even have to be able to perform under that level of stress and violence.

Yet, we are now supposed to believe that after a cool few hour talk and training simulation, a group of 6th graders are going to have the intestinal fortitude to continue an unarmed onslaught on a gunman while their peers and teachers are being slaughtered? That is the most unrealistic thing I have heard of all week. Everyone knows that 99% of those kids are going to hesitate, panic, and be at a loss of what to do while potentially getting shot in the process rather then getting the hell out of the building and surviving.

#4. This kind of **** is bad for the rest of us who are trying to convince a doubting public that the right to carry concealed is a viable, inalienable right that shouldn't be taken away.

For those that don't believe that guns should be carried concealed in the schools, one big fear is that their school, which should be a nurturing and academic environment, is going to turn into a blackwater combat shooting simulation site. This is not the case in most situations, except apparently for these panicky overreactors.

In most cases and as can be seen in Utah, allowing the few staff and parents who so desire to exercise their concealed carry and self-defense rights on school property does nothing to disrupt the environment. This is no different then allowing these rights to be exercised on the streets. Yet, districtwide mandated training like this article describes completely crosses the line of reasonableness.

The sort of thing the article discribed is not only unreasonable, but it is disruptive to a healthy environment. This behavior actually ruins it for the rest of us who want to reasonably maintain our self-defense and carry rights in places like schools.

I want to say that those tactical instructors out there teaching 6th graders how to throw books and pencils at armed gunmen ought to be ashamed of themselves.

#5. Students and staff DO need to be taught a disaster plan, and self-defense programs SHOULD be a part of the physical education curriculum. However, these need to be reasonable and realistic, where violence is not the blanket solution to all problems.

I am happy to report that recent data suggests that there is no danger of a school building flying into the pentagon or white house, unlike flight 93 was attempting. Your also not likely to exit a school building and fall thousands of feet through the sky to the ground below. So we can all relax a little and realize that the best solution for students and staff if there are armed assailents in the school is to get out of the building and run to safety.

We all forget that out of the 13 people killed that day in Columbine, about 1800 or so survived; and mostly because they ran to safety. This was after over 100 shots fired and explosive detonations.

Even as was advocated in Ceicei's article; armed teachers shouldn't be prowling around the schools like the swat team. They should be helping their students get to safety, and they should only be using their firearms if the threat is immediate and right in front of them. No, an armed person doesn't have to retreat at all costs; but they shouldn't be prowling around the school like a badly choreographed Steven Segal movie either. They should simply be doing what will save the most lives at that time.

I maintain that if staff or parents want to take the responsibility for the defense of others and themselves by carrying a firearm, then they should be allowed to do so in school buildings as well as everywhere else. This is part of taking personal responibility, and personal responsability is a good lesson for our kids. But personal responsability does not mean throwing reason out the window. This should be about saving as many lives as possible and fostering a healthy environment, not about being a bad ***, or training teenagers to be like Sean Astin in the movie "Toy Soldiers."

Paul Janulis

 

[Ceicei]

Paul,

That post is probably the most well written post I've read in a long time, full of thoughtful reason and objectivity. Thank you so much for taking the time to write that. There is not much more I could add to what you wrote.

- Ceicei

 

[Cruentus]

Wow...thanks Ceicei..

 

[KenpoTex]

Good post Paul. I definately see your points about this training/instruction not being a good idea as it is being done. One question: Would your opinion be different if this type of training were conducted on an individual level. In other words, if a parent chose to teach their child/children the same type of material would you look at it any differently?

BTW: I personally find the idea of dealing with a gunman by throwing pencils at him somewhat laughable.

 

[Cruentus]

Good post Paul. I definately see your points about this training/instruction not being a good idea as it is being done. One question: Would your opinion be different if this type of training were conducted on an individual level. In other words, if a parent chose to teach their child/children the same type of material would you look at it any differently?

Yes, definatily. Although I would hope that what was being taught was reasonable, of course, but even if it wasn't, at least it isn't being taught to the entire school.

BTW: I personally find the idea of dealing with a gunman by throwing pencils at him somewhat laughable.

And that's really the thing. It makes me wonder if the school administrators watched all of the "Home Alone" sequels in preparation for this.

I want to reinerate that having a disaster plan is important, whether it be a tornado or armed assailent. But, we don't spend a day of school teaching kids all about tornado's and how to deal with them, etc. Fighting back isn't a horrible thing to have as a last resort in the disaster plan, but it shouldn't be represented disproportionataly or placed above the more practical solutions like getting to safety.

A good approach for schools would be to have a disaster plan that accounts for these kinds of threats, where a realistic solution is detailed, but with language and a presentation that doesn't make the kids think that they are going to be facing armed gunmen every week. This should be presented no more proportionally then other disaster plans (such as fires, tornado's, etc.) In fact, I would say it should be presented less proportionally then the other disasters because depending on local, the statistical probability of dealing with a tornado or fire or earthquake is higher then dealing with a terrorist threat in the school building.

Then, self-defense should be a part of the physical education curriculum. This way, kids are learning the practical aspects of self-defense that will work best for them, such as how to deal with strangers, how to use voice, running away, and fighting back as a last resort. This will help them with more likely threats that they could face; like a child abductor for example. Presented appropriately, this will teach kids to be responsible for their own self-defense at an early age, which helps young ladies grow up with self-respect and dignity and the ability to say no, and young boys to grow up with a sense of responsability and respect for human life. These are more important and far more practical then having an assembly where kids are taught to throw their rulers at gunmen. They'll grow to learn an understanding of what self-defense means. Then, in the unlikely chance that they have to "fight back" as a last resort against an armed assailent in a school, they are more likely to succeed.

Any disaster plan and self-defense program needs to be approached holistically. I am all for effective disaster plans that are realistic expectations and presentations. I am in support of effective self-defense programs being integrated into the physical education curriculum that helps foster things like self-confidence, responsibility, dignity, and physical fitness in the process of giving practical self-defense solutions for children. These all need to be subtly integrated into the program. I am not for knee-jerk school district wide reactions that entertain unrealistic and dangerous expectations, and that harbor more panic and violence in our children.

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

Oooo...lookie...

I found a clip from the Burleson, TX school district disaster planning training video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO1yR5-wJXQ&mode=related&search=