Should Schools Be "Prohibited Places"?

[Beiruty]

I think to allow CHLer in schools and to elivate the danger of misdirected shot going to the wrong target CHLer has to submit to higher level of proficiency in their carry guns. Like, doing some IPDA-like qualification time and scored shooting!

[tbrown]

As far as I can tell, the law is still on the books because Lucio, Gallegos and Straus don't want women to be able to defend themselves from rapists.

[steve817]

I cannot imagine any active member of this board voting in favor of keeping schools 'off limits'.

When I voted, it showed 29 for NO and 1 for YES, so someone (NOT ME!) voted in favor.... hmmm

LOL one of them was me, not because I believe it I just did it for shock value.

[Beiruty]

I vote no by mistake. Can I fix that?

[troglodyte]

I think to allow CHLer in schools and to elivate the danger of misdirected shot going to the wrong target CHLer has to submit to higher level of proficiency in their carry guns. Like, doing some IPDA-like qualification time and scored shooting!

I disagree. First, while additional training is always nice, and may be offered, I don't see why it should be required. We are not trying to form a school SWAT team. Allow the teachers to make their personal decisions. Second, the teachers have all sorts of tactical and inside knowledge. We know the kids, schedule, floorplan, hiding places, fields of fire, exits, funnels, alternate routes, etc. We don't limit other CHLers that are around kids at Chucky Cheese, the mall, or church and they don't have much knowledge of any of these mentioned things.

And then what about the parents? Do they have to go through special training too?

I'm no psychologist so maybe one can explain it better but, it comes back to the Norman Rockwell red one-room school house idealology (regardless of what type of experience you had in school) and the fact that we don't like to even entertain the thought of violence entering the school house...even to the point of idiot laws that cannot/do not protect and putting restrictions on the real first responders. We say we want the school/teacher to protect our kids BUT only if they can do it in the most pleasant way or can pass some extra level of competency. I'm not against more training, I'd love even more, but not as a requirement.

The not quite 50 year old grandma teacher is just trying protect her kids and cover the door. She's not on a seek-and-destroy mission. My wife just wants the ability to hide and cover, or, provide cover as her kids get out. It doesn't take much training to shoot a bad guy coming through the only door when you're already aiming at it. Others of us may take a slightly more "tactical" approach but my first responsibility is to my kids not trying to surgically take out the shooter across the crowded gym.

And I apologize if I come across a little touchy on the subject. I don't mean any disrespect. I just care about my kids and want them to go home to their families at the end of the day breathing. Idiot "Gun Free" touchy feel-good laws and "hide-and-wait defenseless plans" aren't going to save the kids. We ALREADY know that. It is about body count now. "We" just can't stomach the idea of actually having to protect our kids in school. We are at least a decade behind the bad guys and it is going to get much worst before we get our heads out of the sand and grow a pair.

[Scott in Houston]

I think to allow CHLer in schools and to elivate the danger of misdirected shot going to the wrong target CHLer has to submit to higher level of proficiency in their carry guns. Like, doing some IPDA-like qualification time and scored shooting!

This line of thinking is almost humorous IMO. I wonder if you're joking, but am guessing you're serious.

Let's imagine there's an active shooter at a school right now, are you saying you wouldn't want a CHL'r to be able to respond unless he/she went to training first??
So, I, and others, would be better off with our guns in our cars only because we haven't done some training a bureaucrat deems worthy??

[Beiruty]

I am serious. It is easy to say, that someone shot a kid by mistake and if it is your kid you will forgive the shooter, however, the dad of the killed student is not amused and he will feel devastated for long time. We may have good intention but we carry a huge responsibility as CHLer. We carry a deadly weapons.

I am promoting more readiness, more qualifications, better shooters. NOT more bureaucratic tests and quals.

If you ever attended a CHL class, and at qualification test at the range, you will see most or many new CHLer never touched a handgun before. They barely ever know how to load, or clear their firearms. ZERO handgun knowledge. They do pass and they eventually get their CHL.

Do you want a novice shooter, rushing into a school and engage an active shooter?

[n5wd]

Do you want a novice shooter, rushing into a school and engage an active shooter?

What about the novice shooter who's already IN the school, in a classroom with 30 of your community's children, behind a locked door. Do you want them to engage the BG that chunks out the window in the door (and every school classroom I've ever seen has a window so that folks (administrators) can view into the classroom as they do their MBWA - management by walking around) and starts shooting into the classroom?

In a perfect world, everyone would have the opportunity to take a 40 hour class on tactics, marksmanship, ballistics, and shooting improvement - but even full time police officers don't do that each year... are you willing for your taxes to go up by some significant percentage to pay for the training you want teachers to be required to have?

And, just another thought - if that was the only person within 5 minutes of responding, would you want "a novice shooter rushing into a school and engaging an active shooter"? A lot of kids at Columbine (and other school incidents) died within 5 minutes of the initial shot.

[RoyGBiv]

I vote no by mistake. Can I fix that?

I set it up to allow changes... Let me know if you can't change it..

[n5wd]

One of the reasons why school administrators and school boards will resist allowing CHL'ers to carry in schools is the possibility that the weapon may be turned upon themselves.

As in the shooting at the Episcopal High School in Jacksonville, FL on March 6, 2012.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/231 ... igh-school

[alexrex20]

One of the reasons why school administrators and school boards will resist allowing CHL'ers to carry in schools is the possibility that the weapon may be turned upon themselves.

As in the shooting at the Episcopal High School in Jacksonville, FL on March 6, 2012.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/231 ... igh-school

That bad guy was going to bring that gun to school, allowed or not. If the victim was allowed to carry a firearm, perhaps he would still be alive.

[gdanaher]

You could legislate deep concealment but in practice could not possibly guarantee it. Sorry, some folks are just stupid. Yes, some of those teachers, too. Just idiots--and I can guarantee they would do something stupid with their gun, and one kid would be on it like a duck on a junebug. If as a principal if I could cherry pick who could or could not carry, I would feel better. But honestly, I've known folks who had absolutely no business being armed. Some years ago I knew an unarmed night time security guard who deliberately ran over kids in the parking lot. He said he wanted to shoot them, but not having a gun, he chose to run them down with his pov. You should not assume that everyone who is "qualified" to carry, should.

[Scott in Houston]

Do you want a novice shooter, rushing into a school and engage an active shooter?

I'd rather a novice shooter engage, than a bunch of kids hiding under desks while the teacher locks the door, and everyone is just praying they don't get shot. You mean to tell me, you would SERIOUSLY, rather have an unarmed teacher trying to 'hide' kids in the classroom while waiting on police, than a "novice shooter" teacher in the classroom with a gun waiting to protect his/her kids if the shooter arrives in their room? I don't' care if that novice hasn't shot a single shot other than the 50 at CHL training... that's better than being a sitting duck!
Also, I'd rather there be MULTIPLE novice shooters already on site, and even better, in the class rooms if an active shooter started his terror.

Most of these active shooters quit and/or take their own lives as soon as they meet resistance of any kind. Having novice shooters on site and able to engage within seconds or minutes is better than waiting 20 minutes for police to arrive, and hunt for the guy, while he's able to kill multiple unarmed teachers and innocent children.

[RoyGBiv]

But honestly, I've known folks who had absolutely no business being armed.

The stupid factor is definitely a concern...

1. Does allowing guns in schools increase the risk from the stupid factor to the point where the risk outweighs the benefits?
2. Is it a worthwhile half step to mandate a "carrying in school" rules and standards class for people who want to carry? Add it as an endorsement.
3. Is it possible to create a reasonable school-carry law that included a process whereby the stupid factor people could be excluded (maybe a time-out, maybe a ban) "for cause"? Or is that just a pipe dream nightmare to implement (I think so)

[fickman]

You could legislate deep concealment but in practice could not possibly guarantee it. Sorry, some folks are just stupid. Yes, some of those teachers, too. Just idiots--and I can guarantee they would do something stupid with their gun, and one kid would be on it like a duck on a junebug. If as a principal if I could cherry pick who could or could not carry, I would feel better. But honestly, I've known folks who had absolutely no business being armed. Some years ago I knew an unarmed night time security guard who deliberately ran over kids in the parking lot. He said he wanted to shoot them, but not having a gun, he chose to run them down with his pov. You should not assume that everyone who is "qualified" to carry, should.

How is this different from a movie theater, coffee shop, restaurant, or church? Either concealed carry works or it doesn't. Your arguments could be used to against concealed carry at a conceptual level. . . they're the same arguments we've been fighting in the public arena for decades.

We're ALL worried about the idiot-factor tainting our reputation or ruining our freedom, but we're not allowed to give an IQ test before granting people their Constitutional rights.

- Gun free zones create defenseless victim zones.
- Legal firearms protect innocents lives from illegal firearms and other forces of evil.
- Once somebody breaks the law or does something stupid, they are no longer authorized by their CHL and do not represent our community. In fact, at this point, legal carry is even more important so that hopefully another responsible person can intervene appropriately.