One of our local school districts are allowing school officals to carry handguns on campus.. This is a small school district thats about 15 miles from actual town, so their main concern is if something happens then its going to take atleast 20 mins to get law enforcement to the school. I think this is one of the best things any rural school district can do.. What do ya'll think on this? Here is a small article from our newspaper this morning..

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2013...jumpstaff-aim/

 

I believe the idea has merit, but I do have serious concerns. I personally have my CCH in NC, and train regularly to make sure I can react to any situation. However a lot pf people, with CCHs, do not. In this situation the staff should be required to qualify the same as LEO. Another area of concern is what members of the staff carry and how they interact with the students. It would be awful easy for a teacher to be interacting with student in the classroom and have another student end up in a situation where they could get their hands on the weapon. This doesn't have to be some one up to no good, but just a child being curios. I believe a better idea would for some one who does not have constant daily contact with the children carrying. Principal, office, maintenance staff, etc would be better choice.
Honestly I think all teachers should have some type of communications with panic button, and perhaps some no lethal deterrent, mace, taser etc. This would allow instant reporting of an issue allowing the trained staff to react.
My children know not to touch fire arms unless they ask permission, and the fist thing they do is clear it. This being said I am still very careful when rough housing if I am carrying. It is just way to easy for something to happen accidentally.

 

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Adrianspeeder

 

Here's one you will not see in the MSM.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/5...-says.html.csp

 

I personally think it's a great idea. Society has for so long sent the message that guns are bad that people have begun to believe it. Guns are not the problem as much as some of the people that own them. By creating things like "gun free zones" to make people feel safer, it has actually made places less safe. People who want to use guns for the wrong reasons are not going to look at a sign that says no guns and say oops, I guess I can't go shoot these people here. By outlawing guns in places it just makes the law-abiding citizens in an area less safe since they have nothing to defend themselves with against an assailant with a gun. I'm all for teachers being able to carry guns. Maybe it will make people think twice before taking a gun into a school.

 

I'd rather see liaison officers in schools than armed teachers.....

 

Looks like they are requiring armed staff members to get their license for concealed carry.

Applied with some common sense, this is probably one of the most effective, cheapest things a school can do to protect from a mass shooting.

I'm for it.

 

Agree. Although, in my opinion, a CCW is not enough. Persons wiling to participate should be trained at a state level along with law enforcement firearm training.

 

I concur with the sentiment to have a higher level of training. However, maybe this should be a discretionary matter left to the school board and principal. If they are competent, they will know their personnel and be able to make an informed decision.

Just thinking that small districts might not have many choices in personnel. A costly, time consuming requirement to send several people away for state training could result in too heavy a financial burden. It could also result in some excellent candidates not signing up, because they are too busy coaching, teaching, being with their own kids, etc...

 

My wife works at a school and there is no way I would let her carry. Only because she is not proficient enough with a gun. Now if she were trained and competent then He** yes!

If the school employees are trained and can pass a shooting test I see no problem with them having a pistol.

Every class/seminar that teachers take gives them the ability to earn more money, so if they are NRA trained then it should be a small perk in their pay check. If they don't/can't qualify then the bonus should be taken away. It's not like we have to re-invent the wheel here.

 

As long as they have training (most states require it to get a CCW permit anyways), I'm all for it. A cop with a gun is just a person with training.

Now if we can only get the knuckleheads in DC to repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990.

 

I think government should simply get out of it. Do not mandate anybody carry a firearm, but at the same time do not prohibit anybody from carrying a firearm. That removes most liability from the school. As long as the government is involved then they will have some liability. School districts have the ability to allow concealed carry on their campuses according to federal law. If they were actually thinking they would go the route of least liability. If they prohibit concealed carry then the parents of any students killed should be suing the school district for not protecting their children. The cases thrown out will be none. If they allow concealed carry then the bad guy should sue for being shot and the parents of any children killed should sue. The cases that get thrown out will be the bad guy's case and the cases of any child killed by the bad guy. Since the school district took reasonable precautions to protect the students. Any children killed accidentally by the teacher would go through. Since it is not mandated that anybody carry concealed the only cases the school can be sued for are the children shot by the bad guy. The bad guy and any child shot by a teacher will have to sue the teacher. By restricting gun carry on campus the government has essentially said we will be responsible for the protection of your child through LE. Failure to do that would seem, to me, to subject them to huge liability issues.

I seriously doubt the effectiveness or desirability of sending a teacher to LE style training. They are two completely different animals. LE is more centered on a surprise attack. LE is also focused on stopping a threat to the officer or others in any environment. Active shooter scenarios are specialized training officers attend. In a school setting the teacher should be advised that if there is shooting secure the kids, check the immediate area, then hunker down. DO NOT go hunting for the bad guy after say 3-5 minutes. Hunting takes quite a bit of training and should not be performed by one person anyway. Not to mention the cops shooting the teacher is the very likely outcome of a teacher hunting the bad guy. If a teacher does decide to go hunting then they should do it fast and hunker down after a certain time period (3-5 minutes). Once the cops arrive they are the hunting party and if the teacher is still walking the halls with a gun, they will likely be shot, several times.

In my old high school we had four halls that contained 95% of the students. The only classes not in those halls were P.E, music studies, and choir. Music studies and choir did not meet at the same time, so at any given time there were only two classes not in those halls. It so happened that those halls were easily defendable. The rest of the school was undefendable by a single person. Place a teacher who decided to carry at the start of the hall and if shooting starts the teacher takes up a concealed, defensive position sitting in the doorway of their classroom. If the bad guy tries to come down the hall the teacher shoots them. It's that simple. The only sitting ducks were those in the classes for music studies and choir. One door in one door out. P.E. had four doors so someone comes in one door and started shooting, everyone would most likely run the opposite direction and out the gym. Although where I grew up most students would probably run to their cars get their guns and shoot the bad guy. We had a lot of hunters and poachers in my school.

 

Close, don't forget the mindset. It takes more than training to be an officer.

I do agree the gun free zone ridiculous. To me it seems to open the government up to a lot of liability, saying they will be the people responsible for protecting the kids. If they don't have a school resource officer on campus, they would seem to be very negligent to me.

 

Financial burden is correct. However, if it meant raising my school district personnel property taxes to fund it, then I will still support it.

Ccw is great for individuals, but the responsibility of keeping so many kids safe, I fully support funding a higher level of training for those who qualify.

 

As long as they are certified & qualified like I am with my weapon I have no problems with it.