So should gun-owning school teachers carry their personal guns in the classroom?

Furthermore, gun advocates argue that many mass murderers target “gun-free” zones, like schools, where the victims are defenseless against shooters

Click to expand...

That's the argument, of course, and we've all heard it. But virtually all of these rage-induced spectacle suicides involve nothing more than a place where a large number of targets are assembled in a small space, and the killer wants nothing more than to expend as much ordnance as possible before being killed or killing himself. These are always surprise attacks, and a lot of victims get generated before anybody could possibly produce counterfire. With an assault rifle and just one 30-round magazine, you can generate a lot of deadly mayhem before anybody can stop you. There's a reason they're called "assault" rifles.

I served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam, 1969-1970. At rear area bases, you weren't allowed to carry a weapon and ammunition without specific permission and specific mission-related purpose. Otherwise, weapons were locked up in company arms rooms. If you needed one, for a job like guard duty, you signed it out.

But, gee, in our open society, you want a Bushmaster, go down to the Bushmaster store and get one.

caw

Why should the teachers have to bring their own? Just add them to the list of required materials students are to provide.

In addition to the tissue boxes and #2 pencils, bring in a handgun and a box of ammo for the classroom supply.

The administrator used his gun to apprehend someone who had already done what he'd come to do: kill. If the admin had dialed 9-1-1 instead of taking the time to go out to his truck, the same result - an arrest - is probable. On the other hand, by there was no guarantee the kid would just give in as he did. He could have shot back - or even shot first.

Jamiekswriter said:

As you said the incident is in the past. But why was he shooting at the police if he didn't mean to kill them? He could have given up. He could have ran. He chose to turn and shoot.

Click to expand...

That still doesn't make him an example in support of your argument. The situation is entirely different from the kind of premeditated, organized, high firepower, mass shooting of unarmed, unsuspecting civilians we are talking about. It can serve as an example of the dangers of gun violence, but it is not an example of an armed populace being a deterrent to gun violence.

As for the and -- the OP's question was should gun-owning school teachers carry their personal guns in the classroom. The article I quoted showed an instance where an administrator used his gun without causing more deaths and was able to help apprehend the shooter who had killed his mother and two students. I thought it was an interesting point that the presence of the gun made the shooter stand down and give up.

Click to expand...

It's an anecdote. Do you have any data to show it is not an anomaly? Also, as Monkey pointed out, he only apprehended the shooter after the shooter had committed murders. So what was prevented by this?

kuwisdelu said:

Why should the teachers have to bring their own? Just add them to the list of required materials students are to provide.

In addition to the tissue boxes and #2 pencils, bring in a handgun and a box of ammo for the classroom supply.

Click to expand...

But what happens when the threat doesn't come from outside the school, but from a group of angry students who want the gun. Should we put the teacher in the position of having to shoot her own students?

blacbird said:

That's the argument, of course, and we've all heard it. But virtually all of these rage-induced spectacle suicides involve nothing more than a place where a large number of targets are assembled in a small space, and the killer wants nothing more than to expend as much ordnance as possible before being killed or killing himself. These are always surprise attacks, and a lot of victims get generated before anybody could possibly produce counterfire. With an assault rifle and just one 30-round magazine, you can generate a lot of deadly mayhem before anybody can stop you. There's a reason they're called "assault" rifles.

I served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam, 1969-1970. At rear area bases, you weren't allowed to carry a weapon and ammunition without specific permission and specific mission-related purpose. Otherwise, weapons were locked up in company arms rooms. If you needed one, for a job like guard duty, you signed it out.

But, gee, in our open society, you want a Bushmaster, go down to the Bushmaster store and get one.

caw

Click to expand...

This!

Haggis said:

Sincere question. Why is he there?

Click to expand...

Honestly, nobody has ever told me. We do have a small number of gang members who are students, so that might be the reason - a sort of intervention/keeping an eye on them kind of thing. Not really enough of them, though, that it causes any real problems for the other students.

muravyets said:

That still doesn't make him an example in support of your argument.

Do you have any data to show it is not an anomaly?

Click to expand...

I really don't have a real argument, to tell you the truth. Just a bunch of feelings. My original feeling for the OPs question was: Yes. Then I thought about it and changed it to the security/police presence instead because let's face it, teachers have a hard enough job just teaching.

I grew up around guns. I feel safe and protected with a gun in the house because I've had the training to use it. It makes me feel less vulnerable. So I see the solution to an armed gunman attacking a place that has no resistance, is to provide that resistance. Maybe the next asshole who wants to shoot up a school will change their mind if they know there's an armed guard. Maybe not. It was a comfort to me to see a policeman at the door of my sons school this morning.

And I really can't be arsed to go look up the data to show it's not an anomaly. Frankly, it's too much work with too little return. I have a feeling that if I did find the info to prove it, it wouldn't change anyone's minds. And I'm not really out to change minds. I'm trying to talk (write) it through so I can stop being so scared and full of anxiety about kindergarten. I really like reading everyone's posts and hearing different opinions -- even if I don't agree with them or they agree with me.

I did do a cursory search to see what was out there in terms of data and came up with some interesting stuff, though.

This FBI site had so much data my eyes crossed.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats/

Although the Mother Jones article someone mentioned is really interesting. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map The comments are fascinating if you can stomach the nasty name calling.

Gregg said:

But what happens when the threat doesn't come from outside the school, but from a group of angry students who want the gun. Should we put the teacher in the position of having to shoot her own students?

Click to expand...

That's why at the beginning of every class, you distribute the guns to all the students. An armed classroom is a polite classroom, amirite?

Jamiekswriter said:

I really don't have a real argument, to tell you the truth. Just a bunch of feelings. My original feeling for the OPs question was: Yes. Then I thought about it and changed it to the security/police presence instead because let's face it, teachers have a hard enough job just teaching.

I grew up around guns. I feel safe and protected with a gun in the house because I've had the training to use it. It makes me feel less vulnerable. So I see the solution to an armed gunman attacking a place that has no resistance, is to provide that resistance. Maybe the next asshole who wants to shoot up a school will change their mind if they know there's an armed guard. Maybe not. It was a comfort to me to see a policeman at the door of my sons school this morning.

And I really can't be arsed to go look up the data to show it's not an anomaly. Frankly, it's too much work with too little return. I have a feeling that if I did find the info to prove it, it wouldn't change anyone's minds. And I'm not really out to change minds. I'm trying to talk (write) it through so I can stop being so scared and full of anxiety about kindergarten. I really like reading everyone's posts and hearing different opinions -- even if I don't agree with them or they agree with me.

I did do a cursory search to see what was out there in terms of data and came up with some interesting stuff, though.

This FBI site had so much data my eyes crossed.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats/

Although the Mother Jones article someone mentioned is really interesting. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map The comments are fascinating if you can stomach the nasty name calling.

Click to expand...

Information overload is as bad as no information at all. In general, however, among the several threads on guns since Friday, several links have been posted with more on-point data. You might find that helpful. Myself, I go with the data that indicates that, generally, the people most likely to be killed or injured by guns are the owners of those guns or their close family, either via conflict or accident. Also the data that shows that more guns does not make for a less violent or more peaceful society, but rather one where conflicts are more likely to end in death.

In the face of the Newtown murders, it's really hard to get past our feelings, but when we are talking about policy for a state or the whole nation, I think we have to put our feelings and preferences aside. We have to question our assumptions and look for proven results of various courses of action.

It's not easy because I don't know of another nation that has the legal foundation for gun-ownership that the US does. But as I've said before, our way of dealing with guns and gun-related issues is becoming unsustainable. We're tearing ourselves apart, and it has to stop. We have to find some reasonable way to ensure public safety around guns. We've been doing the more guns thing for years, and it has only gotten us to a very bad place. We have to start thinking about reducing availability, restricting access, bans on specific weapons, accessories and modifications, personal as well as governmental accountability, and different ways of dealing with confrontations, dangers, and crime. We have to change what we are doing and/or how we are doing it, I really believe that.

I get the impulse to protect kids, but with any security measure, it's important to weigh the risks and benefits. School shootings, while tragic, still happen far less often than accidental shootings. Especially when kids are involved. I don't think encouraging guns in schools is the answer.

Honestly, I question how much things really need to change. School shootings have become a bigger, more visible issue in recent years, so sadly, that is something we need to be mindful of. But every time something tragic happens, people tend to overcompensate trying to make sure it won't happen again. Same thing with airline security post 9/11. But when it comes down to it, we can never completely eliminate the potential for crime (or terror). So I think we need to be careful about what kind of extreme measures we take. Security is good. Turning schools into prisons isn't. Millions of children go to school safely every day, and they shouldn't grow up seeing school as a threatening place where the teachers have to carry guns.

Monkey said:

(snip)
In the Sandy Hook shooting, teachers who were able to simply LOCK THEIR DOORS were able to protect their students. To me, it would make more sense to have doors locked during classes, to have officers either on duty or nearby, and to have an immediate way of contacting said officers, than to arm the teachers. An added bonus would be limiting clip sizes.

Click to expand...

The part about the doors makes excellent sense. Steel door, small wired window for checking (either way) and a good long deadbolt that could be easily locked or opened during class (and opened by key or combination from the outside in case a kid gets cute and tried to lock the teacher out.) Increases safety, and it doesn't put pressure on teachers to carry guns at work. (And maintain their training, and be even more alert at all times. The locking the door would become just another 'thing', like raising your hand to ask to leave the room.)
Schools would only have to pay once, to get the doors installed, and, yeah, tax the gun and ammo buyers, sellers and manufacturers to pay for that.

At my school (a mid-sized suburban Kansas City middle school), we were instructed on Monday to begin locking our doors during class. We also revoked any and all hall passes except in cases of genuine need - for example, you can't go to the bathroom during class anymore, but my student who got a nosebleed out of nowhere today still went to the nurse to get cleaned up. The kids whine about it, and it does introduce some disruptions from time to time, but personally, I like it. My classroom's the very first one right after the office and a locked door would be just about my only line of defense if someone came blasting in through our front doors. Do I really want to test my ability to sprint over, properly insert and turn the correct key (I have two different classroom keys), and get the door closed in time, all while very possibly being fired at? Heck no! I know who'd lose that battle, and it's not the gunman...now if only we could do something about the 3 foot wide, floor to ceiling window right next to my door...

Locking doors during class sounds like a horrible idea to me.

I can't go to the bathroom? Seriously?? Wtf.

This is all overreaction, IMO.

kuwisdelu said:

Locking doors during class sounds like a horrible idea to me.

I can't go to the bathroom? Seriously?? Wtf.

This is all overreaction, IMO.

Click to expand...

IA. I remember a teacher actually implementing in year 3 'no going to the bathroom in lessons', parents complained because their kids would come home with soiled clothes. It's not a very good thing because children have small bladders so lots of kids used to wet themselves. The ban was lifted.

I remember being scared to ask to go to the bathroom due to the ban because it was 'not allowed' so I'd just pee myself tbh and then the ridicule.

I wasn't thinking of denying bathroom privileges. I mean, every classroom I've ever been in has had a door that functions like most doors do: when locked, it can still be opened from the inside. The door might need to be relocked after people leave - or if there's a deadbolt, someone will need to turn the little knob again. People have to knock to get back in. Easy-peasy.

My husband's school is currently on high alert. It's one of about four local schools who have had threats or rumors of a possible school shooting since the Sandy Hook tragedy. It's probably not serious, but the school isn't taking any chances. Every teacher is keeping his or her door locked during the day and there's increased police presence - increased because it's normal, here, to have cops in the hallways.

To answer an earlier question about why cops are usually in schools, these are the reasons I've heard:

* It deters things like fighting in the halls - those cops will treat it just like they'd treat a fight on the street, and kids will end up in cuffs, possibly even get a ride in the squad car.

* It gives teachers an authority figure to call on beyond the principle. When a student starts acting ready to swing on a teacher, in the past, all they could do was ring the principle. Now, they can ring an actual cop, which most students find far more intimidating... and who, at any rate, is better trained and prepared to deal with sudden violence than a high school principle.

* It makes students think twice about bringing drugs to school, distributing them or using them on campus. Especially when the cops are known to occasionally bring drug dogs and stroll by the lockers or visit classrooms.

* On the other hand, the cops chosen for this duty generally like children, and are friendly. The drug dogs chosen for this duty are the sort that are also taken to county fairs and to do talks and whatnot, and are safe to pet. So the kids get used to having a cop around, to talking to him, to smiling at the local drug dog and occasionally getting to scratch him behind the ears. The cop is an authority figure, yes, and can haul your butt off to jail if you take a swing at someone or bring drugs to school, but he's also someone you see all the time, who makes sure no one can take a swing at you, and who you can talk to.

* Having a cop at school also tends to make parents feel better, especially when compared to some of the alternatives: things like metal detectors and guard shacks and high fences with razor wire across the top (these are all examples from my home town and surrounding area.)

Our school was built in 1928. My door locks only from the outside and the lock is tricky. I'm on the second floor and the only restroom is downstairs. The Virginia professor who died from gunshots as he tried to lock his classroom door runs through my mind every time there is another shooting in a school. On the other hand a short, sudden death would be the best bet for me, as my district does not provide health insurance for us teachers. --s6

kuwisdelu said:

Locking doors during class sounds like a horrible idea to me.

I can't go to the bathroom? Seriously?? Wtf.

This is all overreaction, IMO.

Click to expand...

I think locked classrooms are an eminently practical and cost effective, first-line passive defense. It's something any school can do and even if the effect is only a placebo.

A prohibition of hall passes to use the bathroom needn't be a "zero tolerance" rule either. Most middle school and high school student can hold it till the end of class, and exceptions can be made for those in real need.

I think police in the schools is more problematic. Most of the shooting incidents in schools that I can remember have been in schools were not what anyone would call "high risk". Therefore, we'd have to put police in all the schools just. That may not be viable as a long-term solution and may even make kids feel less safe. After all, if there's a cop in the school, he or she must be there for a reason and therefore there must be something to be afraid of.

Monkey said:

It deters things like fighting in the halls - those cops will treat it just like they'd treat a fight on the street, and kids will end up in cuffs, possibly even get a ride in the squad car.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm crazy, but I've always felt like I missed out in school by never really getting into fights. When I was a child, I was always terrified of police arresting me and going to jail forever if I stood up for myself by hitting someone else. It really bothers me that I had to feel that way as a child.

IMO, kids should be able to fight without fear of going away forever. They need to learn better reasons not to throw punches. To me, that kind of thinking — the very thinking I had as a child, that "I can't do this because I'll go to jail forever — is VERY fucked up. It encourages the dogmatic thinking "it's wrong because it's against law," rather than actually teaching anyone anything about getting along with other people. And maybe some might think that's a great idea, but I think it's wrong and fucked up.

It still bothers me that I grew up afraid of police officers. I still am. They make me feel more uncomfortable than protected, and it's because of that mindset I had as a child, and that's all that this kind of thing would promote. I'd rather have gotten a few bloody noses.

Fuckitall.

An ii-year-old Utah boy brought his 0.22-caliber handgun to school today to defend himself against any possible shooters. Sad and scary on so many levels.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/utah-boy-brings-gun-school-cites-newtown-fears-18007237

Jamiekswriter said:

How many were saved?

Click to expand...

EMTs saved all nine of them. Go them!

But that wasn't the point of the exchange, was it?

Haggis said:

Sincere question. Why is he there?

Click to expand...

In the case of the two "safety officers" in my county (one each in two school districts) their major function is to liaise between the school and local law enforcement for crimes or possible criminal offenses that occur on school grounds - during school hours. They also break up fights and present a law enforcement presence at in school hours events.

In practice they are more likely to be called to help "quiet" an angry parent than an angry kid, or to "bag and tag' evidence related to discovered drugs or drug offenses.

btw, the reason we have two, instead of the one we had for both districts last year, has nothing to do with a rise in criminal or unruly activity. Instead, it has to do with politics and interpersonal relationships. We have a new assistant administrator at one of the schools, and that individual cannot get along with the officer who was assigned there. So, they solved it by throwing money, and another body, at the problem.

Roger J Carlson said:

A prohibition of hall passes to use the bathroom needn't be a "zero tolerance" rule either. Most middle school and high school student can hold it till the end of class, and exceptions can be made for those in real need.

Click to expand...

Exactly. We have 45 minute classes and a 6 minute passing period, and with only a few exceptions (the preforming arts are clear on the other side of the building) it takes me, at most, two minutes to walk to any of the other classrooms. And yes, it's my personal classroom policy that if a kid walks up to me during passing and says, "hey, I'm going to the bathroom, but I might not have enough time to get back before the bell" I rarely count them tardy unless they're excessively slow in coming back. The goal isn't to keep kids from using the bathroom; it's to keep the hallways as clear as possible.

We also have two police officers in our school this year, but it's not due to anything sinister either; the woman who was here last year is pregnant, and they wanted her replacement to get to know the school and the kids before she goes on maternity leave next week. Most of the police work here is breaking up fights and helping counsel kids who get into the more serious kinds of trouble (fights, the rare drug problem, etc.)

Roger J Carlson said:

I think locked classrooms are an eminently practical and cost effective, first-line passive defense. It's something any school can do and even if the effect is only a placebo.

A prohibition of hall passes to use the bathroom needn't be a "zero tolerance" rule either. Most middle school and high school student can hold it till the end of class, and exceptions can be made for those in real need.

I think police in the schools is more problematic. Most of the shooting incidents in schools that I can remember have been in schools were not what anyone would call "high risk". Therefore, we'd have to put police in all the schools just. That may not be viable as a long-term solution and may even make kids feel less safe. After all, if there's a cop in the school, he or she must be there for a reason and therefore there must be something to be afraid of.

Click to expand...

That's 'cause middle school and high school students have much bigger bladders than little kids and can hold it in for longer periods due to this.

kuwisdelu said:

Maybe I'm crazy, but I've always felt like I missed out in school by never really getting into fights.

Click to expand...

There are other places to get into fights, if you want to. School's really not a good place for it.

When I was a child, I was always terrified of police arresting me and going to jail forever if I stood up for myself by hitting someone else. It really bothers me that I had to feel that way as a child.

Click to expand...

You didn't "have" to feel that way, because it wasn't true. When the cops do get involved, and one of the kids is giving them enough problems to get a squad car ride, that kid doesn't disappear forever. They're back pretty quickly - right after the standard suspension time - but they're usually MUCH better behaved because when a kid goes to jail, parents start paying much closer attention to what their kid is up to.

They need to learn better reasons not to throw punches.

Click to expand...

Sure. And that education starts very early these days; my Kindergartner has learned a lot about why hitting solves nothing and how to deal with bullies. But the truth is, in the adult world, fighting has consequences like having the cops show up, and you might end up fined or in jail. There may be other reasons, but that desire to stay out of legal trouble has certainly prevented me from getting into fights at times. It's a realistic consideration.

It still bothers me that I grew up afraid of police officers.

Click to expand...

If you'd grown up in a neighborhood where "community policing" was the norm, you probably wouldn't be. That's where part of the cops' job is to shoot hoops with the kids, sit around and chat with people, walk through the neighborhoods and just generally get to know everyone. The same thing applies to cops in schools; they get to know the kids, talk to them, just generally hang out and be friendly.

They make me feel more uncomfortable than protected, and it's because of that mindset I had as a child, and that's all that this kind of thing would promote.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. There were cops in my school.