TexasCHLforum.com

How DARE you inject logic and facts into the argument! You go to your room RIGHT NOW, young man! No supper for you!

anygunanywhere wrote:

ArmedTeacher wrote: I can just see the headlines now, "Teacher Shoots CHL Parent Mistaken as Gunman."

So exactly how is a teacher going to mistake an individual carrying concealed as a gunman? I believe concealed here is the key word. Using your logic it would be just as likely for a parent carrying concealed to mistake a teacher for a crazed gunman and shoot the teacher.

Anygunanywhere

Anygun,

I guess my headline didn't give enough detail, as any good headline doesn't. I never stated that the parent's weapon was concealed at the time. In my head as I was writing it, the parent is moving around the school with their weapon drawn in an attempt to "help" locate the shooter. The teacher spots the parent and believes that they are the shooter. That's exactly how.

And yes, using my logic, the parent could just as likely shoot the teacher. I would hope that parent would recognize the ID badge on the teacher and not shoot them, but I've seen people do stupid things many times.

flintknapper wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

ArmedTeacher wrote: I can just see the headlines now, "Teacher Shoots CHL Parent Mistaken as Gunman."

So exactly how is a teacher going to mistake an individual carrying concealed as a gunman? I believe concealed here is the key word. Using your logic it would be just as likely for a parent carrying concealed to mistake a teacher for a crazed gunman and shoot the teacher.

Anygunanywhere

Not to mention that in neither case...is the mere "presence" of a gun a valid reason to shoot someone.

There again, my imagination goes crazy...the parent is aiming the gun around as they move through the school in an effort to get to their child to protect them. I agree that the presence of a gun is not reason to shoot, having it pointed at you is.

Oh, good God! Here we go again; more fearmongering and paranoia.

CHLs who have the misfortune to be involved in critical incidents now don't run around "aiming the gun around" as you so eloquently put it. They don't do it in the mall or on the street, why do you think they will in a school? What is it about a school building that is so magical that being in it vaporizes everyone's logic, common sense and training?

You're right, your imagination goes crazy.

This is my opinion. My oldest son and his wife are teachers. Hopefully, my son's future wife is a teacher. This opinion springs from what I hear in their converstaions.

You must detach yourself from the "teacher" part of your being if you are to understand exactly what you need to do to protect your students. The current way teachers are trained to think is counter to what you have to do to protect the students.

Stop thinking like a teacher and start thinking like a free, rational individual who fully intends to defend their life and the life of those they love. Be more of an adult and parent.

This is not meant to offend any teachers. I respect teachers and the teaching profession.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:This is my opinion. My oldest son and his wife are teachers. Hopefully, my son's future wife is a teacher. This opinion springs from what I hear in their converstaions.

You must detach yourself from the "teacher" part of your being if you are to understand exactly what you need to do to protect your students. The current way teachers are trained to think is counter to what you have to do to protect the students.

Stop thinking like a teacher and start thinking like a free, rational individual who fully intends to defend their life and the life of those they love. Be more of an adult and parent.

This is not meant to offend any teachers. I respect teachers and the teaching profession.

Anygunanywhere

Thank You!

I still want to know what sort of Black Magick is around school buildings that sucks people's brains out.

Malls, WalMart, Downtown streets, hospitals, churches, the Zoo and the like are all places crowded with people. They are all places where we trust CHLs to be roaming around without any of this much-vaunted "additional training." And yet somehow we have had no problems with CHLs there.

bdickens wrote:I still want to know what sort of Black Magick is around school buildings that sucks people's brains out.

Many laws have been passed in the name of "saving the children."

ArmedTeacher wrote:
I guess my headline didn't give enough detail, as any good headline doesn't. I never stated that the parent's weapon was concealed at the time. In my head as I was writing it, the parent is moving around the school with their weapon drawn in an attempt to "help" locate the shooter. The teacher spots the parent and believes that they are the shooter. That's exactly how.

And yes, using my logic, the parent could just as likely shoot the teacher. I would hope that parent would recognize the ID badge on the teacher and not shoot them, but I've seen people do stupid things many times.

While a mistaken identity shooting is possible in any environment, it very rarely happens with either CHL's or police in the real world.

In an active shooter situation, figuring out who is who isn't really hard:

The bad guy is shooting at unarmed innocents.

Good guys are taking cover, standing between innocents and the bad guy, and / or engaging the bad guy.

I don't see any reason these indicative criteria wouldn't be just as successfully applied in schools as they are in the rest of the country.

ArmedTeacher wrote: I am all for teachers carrying on campus.

I must admit that I am for further training as well.

Be careful there, those are fightin' words around these parts!

Seriously, though, you do bring up a good point, one that I've brought up several times:

Isn't the point of training to be better prepared than you were before? Aren't teachers constantly going through staff development to be come better teachers?

As are cops, and firemen, and many others. For CHL's to believe they are somehow different from those of us who do put value in additional preparation borders on the arrogant.

I have been through a school shooting before and I know exactly what happens and how it feels. I know how I reacted and what I was able to do. I know my skills and abilities. Even then, it helps to have some idea of what could happen. Training can only make the situation and your reaction better.

You have something I was unable to inject into this discussion: Experience with a school shooting.

Regardless of whether teachers can carry, I would use anything I can to prevent an attacker from harming those in my charge.

As would I.

mr.72 wrote: Just to stir the pot, some fallacies:

Schools present some unique environment or circumstance that normal CHL holders are not equipped to handle. This is a logical fallacy that makes for good propaganda because it actually contains some truth, while implying a conclusion that is completely false.
...
A school teacher who is skilled at managing groups of children or teens, who understands their behavior intuitively, who is committed to their safety and education, is regularly charged with the protection of these children and they are extremely well-equipped to do so.

If that were the case, teachers would have no need for continual professional development throughout their careers, because (according to your logic) teachers are already "well-equipped" to teach right out of school. By extension of your logic, a teacher that's a CHL is already "well-equipped" to react appropriately to a school-based threat (despite no training in this area) by virtue of taking a state-mandated CHL course.

One might support on-campus carry for teachers provided there was a mandated extra training beyond the CHL class for the teachers who are carrying. This is a fallacy on a few levels.

Firstly, no such training has been identified.

Sure, because as of today there is only one school district in Texas that permits concealed carry on campus. That hardly makes your point a qualified counterpoint.

Fourth, this argument is flatly unconstitutional.

Do you have references that supports this statement? Where does "additional training" violate either the US or Texas constitutions?

anygunanywhere wrote: Stop thinking like a teacher and start thinking like a free, rational individual who fully intends to defend their life and the life of those they love. Be more of an adult and parent.

The converse of your argument is that those of us who believe additional training is necessary to protect our children are somehow "childish" in our way of thinking, and are guilty of harboring "teacher-like" thoughts when it comes to how to best protect our charges.

I think any logical thread that may have existed in this discussion has finally met a grisly, undignified end. There's simply no way to debate such a baseless argument.

As far as training goes I'd like to point out that just the other day I saw a police cruiser going down the interstate in the same lane with their turn signal on for 3 miles. I'm not sure if they ever turned it off since I needed to exit. I'm fairly certain that police officers receive additional vehicle training above that of normal citizens. Based on the previous logic of training, no one should be allowed to drive if police with their additional training can't seem to operate a vehicle properly.

After 132 posts, it's my belief that this thread has run its course. Unless there are further compelling arguments to reply to, I'll probably not be actively responding.

That said, I'm also going to be upfront with an observation: I'm somewhat dismayed at the personal attacks and derogatory comments that were made just because we seemed to have a difference of opinion. I would like to think that CHL holders are rational, thoughtful, and responsible, but it's obvious to me that this isn't always the case. I can only hope that those who decided to vent their hostilities over a simple disagreement about CHL training requirements are able to keep their cool over a far more serious confrontation with a total stranger. Those of you know who you are: Some soul-searching as to how you might handle a confrontation far more serious than our friendly disagreement here might be in order.

On another note: Not once did I detect a spirit of compromise on the part of those who argued (quite vehemently in some cases) against additional training requirements for CHL holders. Not that I was expecting any, but all the same, I'm concerned that there is a group of CHL holders who deeply believe that the state-mandated CHL training is all the training that they will ever need in an armed confrontation, and anyone who disagrees with them must be from "the other side." My teacher side wants to preach that "learning is a lifelong commitment," but I'm sure that will fall on deaf ears.

Finally, as a teacher and a CHL holder, I will not hesitate to voice my concerns with regards to additional training requirements for teachers who might carry on school campuses. I realize that my voice in both roles will most likely carry more weight than a non-teacher CHL holder or a non-CHL-holding teacher, and I'll be the first to step up to the plate when my school district calls for input on CHL carry in our school. I appreciate the alternate viewpoints that have been expressed here, but I've yet to see a compelling argument that would indicate state-mandated CHL training is sufficient training to handle a school-shooter scenario, and will continue to push for additional training to those who are entrusted with the safety of our children. I know that those of us who really care won't balk for an instant at any additional training that might be necessary.

brianko wrote: If that were the case, teachers would have no need for continual professional development throughout their careers, because (according to your logic)

Please refrain from referring to my logic. Your assumptions certainly do not reflect my logic.

teachers are already "well-equipped" to teach right out of school. By extension of your logic, a teacher that's a CHL is already "well-equipped" to react appropriately to a school-based threat (despite no training in this area) by virtue of taking a state-mandated CHL course.

I have never once advocated that the state mandated training is necessary for teachers or anyone else in a practical sense.

And furthermore you seem to be suggesting that teachers must have all of the available lifetime's worth of continued training before they are qualified to teach, right? So if they are qualified to teach, and yet are still available for additional continued training, why are they not qualified to carry their own gun for their own protection, and still available for additional training?

Maybe if you will be willing to concede that teachers should not be considered qualified to teach right out of college, then I will agree that those teachers are also unqualified to carry a firearm. I will suggest, at whatever point you say they are qualified to begin teaching, it is at that same point that they are qualified to carry their firearm to work, because they have a fundamental right to their own self defense and it is not made null because they happen to be a teacher.

Firstly, no such training has been identified.

Sure, because as of today there is only one school district in Texas that permits concealed carry on campus. That hardly makes your point a qualified counterpoint.

I guess they don't teach logic or debate in Texas public schools.

This is not a counterpoint, it is a reasoning why the argument that we should require some training is a red herring. There is no such training that has been identified. So the training in question is a fantasy.

Fourth, this argument is flatly unconstitutional.

Do you have references that supports this statement? Where does "additional training" violate either the US or Texas constitutions?

I must have misread the Second Amendment ...

brianko wrote:Not once did I detect a spirit of compromise on the part of those who argued (quite vehemently in some cases) against additional training requirements for CHL holders. Not that I was expecting any, but all the same, I'm concerned that there is a group of CHL holders who deeply believe that the state-mandated CHL training is all the training that they will ever need in an armed confrontation, and anyone who disagrees with them must be from "the other side." My teacher side wants to preach that "learning is a lifelong commitment," but I'm sure that will fall on deaf ears.

Finally, as a teacher and a CHL holder, I will not hesitate to voice my concerns with regards to additional training requirements for teachers who might carry on school campuses. I realize that my voice in both roles will most likely carry more weight than a non-teacher CHL holder or a non-CHL-holding teacher, and I'll be the first to step up to the plate when my school district calls for input on CHL carry in our school. I appreciate the alternate viewpoints that have been expressed here, but I've yet to see a compelling argument that would indicate state-mandated CHL training is sufficient training to handle a school-shooter scenario, and will continue to push for additional training to those who are entrusted with the safety of our children. I know that those of us who really care won't balk for an instant at any additional training that might be necessary.

Nor did you ever display a willingness to compromise, as evidenced by your statement that you didn't expect any, indicating to me that you had no intent to compromise in the first place. You treated others, from the start, as the other side yourself, you should have expected nothing more in return.

As far as your using your influence to sway others away from allowing teachers and administrators to carry, it's a shame that you would do that, for you have presented no compelling arguement to support your concerns.