TX. Teacher's rights to carry on campus.

[jimlongley]

Do you believe that, given the period of time that has gone by with CHL restrictions against school carry, that a few months of careful introspection and consideration of additional training will be of no benefit?

Yes, absolutely, it's an idea whose time has come.

In other words, do you believe it's OK to have the Legislature simply rush in, abandon all restrictions on school carry, and "hope for the best"?

I think it's disingenuous to portray it as having the legislature rush in.

Having school districts allow carry is already statutorily available, the only improvement I am looking for is to allow CHLs to carry there without extra permission from the school, which also hardly qualifies as abandoning all restrictions, and I believe we already covered the anti-gun arguement of hoping for the best.

[brianko]

srothstein wrote:

The resistance is to the concept you are espousing. I do not think you have realized what you said, but you basically have said that the average adult who has a CHL is not properly qualified to carry a gun to defend himself. That is how I took it, and I would bet that some of the others also took it that way.

Your reply:

Obviously I'm carrying the contrarian view here :) But yes, that's exactly what I said.

My response was clearly made within the context of the discussion. But if you feel inclined to take my position completely out of context (as you have here), then you and I have nothing further to discuss. We're discussing CHL carry in schools, are we not?

Well....I suppose if we allow you to "set the rules", then you will do very well in this discussion/argument.

Ad hominem arguments are generally made when the person making the argument desires to change the subject rather than discuss the merits of the argument at hand. I don't believe I'm trying to impose any "rules" on you or anyone else.

I have no idea what your background or experience is in this area. If you would like to share that with us...it might prove helpful (or not). Concerning the context of your statement, if you would like to "rephrase" or add some point of clarification....then I'm all ears.

My background isn't important to argue my position. I don't believe that's a requirement to post one's background and experience on this forum to argue a position. Correct me if I'm mistaken, and I'll reconsider my decision to continue with this discussion.

[Liberty]

Considering recent massacres, that's just too big a chance. To me you just have not established a convincing arguement against allowing licensed CHL holders to carry in schools, and that is my focus.

Fair enough. You and I will simply have to agree to disagree.

Do you believe that, given the period of time that has gone by with CHL restrictions against school carry, that a few months of careful introspection and consideration of additional training will be of no benefit? In other words, do you believe it's OK to have the Legislature simply rush in, abandon all restrictions on school carry, and "hope for the best"?

Why not? In 1995 they were screaming about blood flowin' in the streets. It never happened. In the mean time the schools have become killing fields and we are powerless to offer the same protection that we offer our young people in parks playgrounds and other public places around the country. Some might claim leave it to the professionals. School police would not be any more likely to be trained for random situations / terrorist situation than a conscientious CHL The typical school cop is not not very highly combat trained either. We actually have a pretty decent record when it comes to defencive shootings, and doing the right thing. Extra training is a good thing, while defenseless gunfree zones is worse than CHLers with a lack of hundreds of hours of tactical combat training.

[anygunanywhere]

I understand that some will take great personal affront to this statement, but then again, those are the same individuals that argue from a point of passion rather than a point of reason.

We do not argue from a point of passion.

We argue our point with a passion based on our beliefs as free, thinking, reasoned individuals who do not take lightly the responsibilities associated with carrying a concealed firearm.

Stating that our argument is not reasoned is in and of itself a lie. The facts support our argument. Reason supports our argument. Stating that a free, thinking, reasoned individual can not arm themselves for self defense any time, any place, under any circumstance that they are allowed to be runs counter to natural law and reason itself.

Your argument is based on the lie perpetrated by the antis that holds us as careless, idiotic, agressive, unthinking morons who dream of the day when the circumstances unfold so we can wade into a target rich environmment bent on drilling some target Mozambique style while taking out multiple bystanders in the process.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You obviously do not hold fellow educators in a very high regard, much less those of us who carry as a normal part of our routine.

Anygunanywhere

[brianko]

Do you believe that, given the period of time that has gone by with CHL restrictions against school carry, that a few months of careful introspection and consideration of additional training will be of no benefit? In other words, do you believe it's OK to have the Legislature simply rush in, abandon all restrictions on school carry, and "hope for the best"?

School police would not be any more likely to be trained for random situations / terrorist situation than a conscientious CHL The typical school cop is not not very highly combat trained either. We actually have a pretty decent record when it comes to defencive shootings, and doing the right thing. Extra training is a good thing, while defenseless gunfree zones is worse than CHLers with a lack of hundreds of hours of tactical combat training.

Finally: Reasoned debate rather than personal attacks. I appreciate that.

When you say "school cop," do you mean district-hired LEOs, private security, or municipal LEOs?

Your position brings up another thought: Is there a reason why every CHL should feel they are entitled to carry on school grounds? Given a cadre of educators at each school who has been trained in those areas I proposed earlier (close quarters combat, alternative defense, crowd control), would there be a need for lesser-qualified CHL holders as well?

Or do you believe every CHL is capable and ready to mount a defense (or an offense, as the case may be) under any number of stressful situations?

I think this is the crux of the issue: There are those who believe CHL holders are ready for anything. Then there are those who believe CHL holders have the correct mindset, and would benefit greatly from additional training (otherwise, why not just let a CHL be the determining qualification to get hired on as a LEO?). Obviously, I'm in the second camp. We all agree on the same destination; we just can't agree on the best route to take us there.

[brianko]

[Nothing could be further from the truth. You obviously do not hold fellow educators in a very high regard, much less those of us who carry as a normal part of our routine.

He we go again: Attack the messenger because you don't like the message, rather than debate the argument itself.

I do, in fact, hold fellow educators in high regard (and I'm amazed you're forward enough to make this kind of statement without even knowing me). I think highly of those who carry as well (it would be a bit dishonest of me not too, since I carry also).

Now that we're past that little roadblock, let me ask you this: If the state-mandated CHL is sufficient to allow educators to be able to legally carry in the unique close-quarters confines of a typical school, would there be a need for school districts to continue to employ school resource officers (SROs)?

[Liberty]

Finally: Reasoned debate rather than personal attacks. I appreciate that.

When you say "school cop," do you mean district-hired LEOs, private security, or municipal LEOs?

Your position brings up another thought: Is there a reason why every CHL should feel they are entitled to carry on school grounds? Given a cadre of educators at each school who has been trained in those areas I proposed earlier (close quarters combat, alternative defense, crowd control), would there be a need for lesser-qualified CHL holders as well?

Or do you believe every CHL is capable and ready to mount a defense (or an offense, as the case may be) under any number of stressful situations?

I think this is the crux of the issue: There are those who believe CHL holders are ready for anything. Then there are those who believe CHL holders have the correct mindset, and would benefit greatly from additional training (otherwise, why not just let a CHL be the determining qualification to get hired on as a LEO?). Obviously, I'm in the second camp. We all agree on the same destination; we just can't agree on the best route to take us there.

You won't get much "reasoned debate" from me on this one, because I have little to add to this discussion. I was referring to all of the above when I mentioned security. Very few LEO or security personnel spend a lot of training hours in combat tactics. Notable exception would be SWAT teams and military training. There is a lot of training to become cerified as Peace officer and combat tactics take a small role.

My position is that we as citizens should have the right to defend ourselves. We have the RKBA. In Texas we as Citizens who are CHL holders also have the right to carry concealed on school grounds. To deny teachers these same rights is wrong. Statistically it is proven that where there are CHLers it turns out that everyone is safer.

We sometimes take the stand that allowing the CHLer to carry in our schools would make the schools safer, however the real reason to carry is to make it safer for the CHLer. This is a basic and fundamental right. Almost any teacher or cadre member in the school system would not hesitate to go into a protective mode, but it is important to remember why we carry and why we are allowed to carry.

I have a lot of confidence in the 270k CHLers out there. We don't often get our selves in troube. and quite often accomplish great things. Can we screw it up? Sure, but just because a guy has a badge on him doesn't mean he can't screw it up.

You mention that our logic might indicate that some of us believe our CHL should qualify us as LEOs. Combat tactics and gun handling is such a very small part of the qualifications. We are not cops, and every CHLer I've met knows this.

[boomerang]

Now that we're past that little roadblock, let me ask you this: If the state-mandated CHL is sufficient to allow educators to be able to legally carry in the unique close-quarters confines of a typical school, would there be a need for school districts to continue to employ school resource officers (SROs)?

Carrying a firearm for self defense right now is different than preventing future crimes or investigating past crimes.

The state mandated CHL is sufficient to allow office workers to carry in downtown Houston but there is still a need for HPD downtown.

[flintknapper]

My response was clearly made within the context of the discussion. But if you feel inclined to take my position completely out of context (as you have here), then you and I have nothing further to discuss. We're discussing CHL carry in schools, are we not?

Translation: You are cornered by your own post.....so you respond with something nonsensical and then threaten to "take your ball and go home". Yes, the main discussion is about CHL carry in schools. This tread...(like most) will probably diverge some from the topic at hand, especially when you insinuate certain things.

My background isn't important to argue my position.

If not important (one way or the other) then why so hesitant to give it?

I don't believe that's a requirement to post one's background and experience on this forum to argue a position.

No requirement on your part! I just thought you would want to be forthcoming and give us all a little insight into who we are having this discussion with. But...if you choose not to, that is certainly your privilege.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, and I'll reconsider my decision to continue with this discussion.

No mistake, please stick around. This should be interesting.

Flint.

[brianko]

My response was clearly made within the context of the discussion. But if you feel inclined to take my position completely out of context (as you have here), then you and I have nothing further to discuss. We're discussing CHL carry in schools, are we not?

Translation: You are cornered by your own post.....so you respond with something nonsensical and then threaten to "take your ball and go home". Yes, the main discussion is about CHL carry in schools. This tread...(like most) will probably diverge some from the topic at hand, especially when you insinuate certain things.

It's quite easy to take something out of context and portray it as something it is not. Here, I'll use you as an example:

Sounds like they have it well planned and already recognize the need for training and an understanding of the law.

I believe this is an accurate quote, by you, about some residents in FL fed up with crime. Here's an excerpt from the article linked in that thread:

Members of the Royal Poinciana Civic Association say they want to start working with a Texas-based gun-rights organization and a local weapons-training academy to verse residents on gun laws and self-protection...the group will apply for grants to help pay for weapons training and to purchase warning signs, said activist Norm Berube, who bought a Glock a month ago.

So, correct me if I'm wrong: You clearly support training (provided through a weapons-training academy, no less!) for these residents who want to make their neighborhoods a safer place. Yet you seem to take great issue with my very same suggestion for similar training (i.e., training that goes beyond that provided in the CHL course) for those who want to make their schools a safer place. (I should note here that the state-mandated CHL training does not require the services of a weapons-training academy.)

Of course, I've quoted you out of context, but only to make my point. It's quite easy to mix and match quotes to support whatever conclusion you want supported, even though the veracity of said conclusion might be questionable.

My background isn't important to argue my position.

If not important (one way or the other) then why so hesitant to give it?

Because it has no bearing on the discussion. I've already established that I'm (1) and educator and (2) a CHL holder. And trying to shift focus on the person, rather than the issue, is simply a thinly-veiled attempt to divert attention away from the issue (maybe in the hopes that it will just go away?)

So, back to you: What makes you believe that a CHL holder, with no additional training other than that mandated by the state, will be mentally prepared and ready to take on a gunman in a public school without adequate training in the areas I've mentioned previously?

[Xander]

We're discussing CHL carry in schools, are we not?

Yes, and you've been asked repeatedly, and to this point refused to articulate *why* you're drawing an arbitrary distinction between carry in schools, and carry in malls, daycare facilities, office buildings, or anywhere else it is legal. Do you have a reason? Or is it just an illogical argument of passion, as you earlier put it? If you *do* have a reason, I'm sure we'll all be receptive to hearing it.

[Xander]

I've already established that I'm (1) and educator and (2) a CHL holder. And trying to shift focus on the person, rather than the issue, is simply a thinly-veiled attempt to divert attention away from the issue (maybe in the hopes that it will just go away?)

You're an educator? I thought you were at "IT Professional"? http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =2&t=18283

As an IT professional, I cringe every time I see some "novel" way of generating so-called "secure" passwords.

What am I missing here?

[srothstein]

Brianko,

If I understand your argument correctly, you feel the average CHL has the ability to defend himself, but you are concerned about their ability to respond to a problem at the school. You also feel that the average cop (certified peace officer not private security) has had some measure of tactical training that makes him a better choice for school security than armed teachers. As such, you are against teachers carrying based on a CHL without their having gone through some specified additional training (details to be worked out, obviously).

I mention certified peace officer in general even though at one point you asked about school cop or municipal cop. In Texas, those are both legally the same and have the same training. The odds of any particular cop having received more tactical training than another cop are about even with regards to employer or duty. Small town cops do not get more training and large school district cops can even have their own SWAT type response teams.

Allow me to point out one major difference in conception that may be causing some of the arguments. When I propose for any teacher to carry, I am not expecting them to react to any disturbance in the school other than one that happens right in their classroom or presence. They should not be going down the hall to see what happens when they hear shots. They should not be trying to determine if there is a need for a hostage negotiator. If someone is trying to kill them, they should be able to defend themselves. They will know the threat explicitly at that time. If there is a problem in their classroom, they should be able to handle it. If there is a problem in another classroom, they should take the same defensive procedures they do now in locking down their students to protect them.

No one is suggesting that the teacher take on the role of school security. Even if they have a CHL, being assigned that duty could be considered a violation of other state laws on security licensing. This might change your opinion or not. As I am sure you know now, there are already teachers assigned to help with security duties in most schools. They go when there is a call for kids fighting and such. what happens now if they go and the students are shooting at each other? Would a CHL change their response? They are not paid to get into gun fights and they know it.

In short, I think the teacher should be able to defend himself, whether in his class room or in the mall. The armed teacher is not expected to provide security duties tot he school (though I know some teachers will work to protect their students out of a moral duty - as seen by the one professor in VA Tech).

And, having worked in law enforcement for as long as I have, I will also say that you and I appear to have vastly different opinions on the training and capabilities of most cops. I work hard to teach them what to do, and to remember that they are just average people. They are not superman or a special class that can do things average citizens cannot.

[brianko]

One of the arguments made in this discussion is that CHL holders with only state-mandated training under their belts have the skills necessary to arm themselves on school campuses and respond correctly to threats without needing additional training.

Applying this same logic, one could make the same argument for LEOs: Given their level of training far surpasses that of the typical state-mandated CHL course, they would need no additional training to respond to campus incidents.

The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO, http://www.nasro.org), a non-profit organization that is headed up by professionals in the field, seems to believe otherwise. One of the courses offered is a hands-on course called "SRO Active Shooter Response Course."

I find it quite interesting that an organization deeply involved in law enforcement believes there is a need for *additional* training in this area, yet there are CHL holders with *no* additional training who believe they are qualified to take on a school gunman in the environment that's unique to many school campuses.

Might it be that some CHL holders have an over-inflated sense of their own capabilities?

[Xander]

The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO, http://www.nasro.org), a non-profit organization that is headed up by professionals in the field, seems to believe otherwise. One of the courses offered is a hands-on course called "SRO Active Shooter Response Course."

I find it quite interesting that an organization deeply involved in law enforcement believes there is a need for *additional* training in this area, yet there are CHL holders with *no* additional training who believe they are qualified to take on a school gunman in the environment that's unique to many school campuses.

If you looked closely at the course outline for that class, the only part that would be applicable to CHLs is two days on the range, and potentially some of the scenario work. Active shooters are not just a problem for school campuses. It just so happens that that particular organization is specifically aiding school resource officers. There are active shooter response courses for other police officers as well, dealing with active shooter scenarios in malls, theme parks, airports, anywhere else you have large congregations of people. For that matter, there are all kinds of continuing education courses for police officers to hone their combat skills in all sorts of situations that are not necessarily relevant to CHL holder.


So...The question still remains: In your words, why should a CHL holder be held to a different standard to carry in a school than in a commercial day care, or a mall, or an office building?