TX. Teacher's rights to carry on campus.

[brianko]

The argument that requires additional training to arm oneself in schools is not what I consider supporting the second amendment. Requiring additional training is in fact an infringement to the second amendment.

Then by that logic, a legal requirement for a CHL is in itself an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights (and, some pro-gun pundits would argue that very point). If we were truly diehard 2nd Amendment supporters, we would all be carrying openly, and challenging the government to take our guns away.

Instead, we've chosen to accept something of a compromise so that we can actually live our lives without battling the government every inch of the way.

After all ..."we are talking about teachers carrying in schools, aren't we".

We certainly are. Besides some sidetracks I've had to make to address a few personal barbs, I'm still here, on topic!

[WildBill]

The argument that requires additional training to arm oneself in schools is not what I consider supporting the second amendment. Requiring additional training is in fact an infringement to the second amendment.

Then by that logic, a legal requirement for a CHL is in itself an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights (and, some pro-gun pundits would argue that very point). If we were truly diehard 2nd Amendment supporters, we would all be carrying openly, and challenging the government to take our guns away.

Jeez brianko, don't get him started.

[anygunanywhere]

The argument that requires additional training to arm oneself in schools is not what I consider supporting the second amendment. Requiring additional training is in fact an infringement to the second amendment.

Then by that logic, a legal requirement for a CHL is in itself an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights (and, some pro-gun pundits would argue that very point). If we were truly diehard 2nd Amendment supporters, we would all be carrying openly, and challenging the government to take our guns away.

Instead, we've chosen to accept something of a compromise so that we can actually live our lives without battling the government every inch of the way.

After all ..."we are talking about teachers carrying in schools, aren't we".

We certainly are. Besides some sidetracks I've had to make to address a few personal barbs, I'm still here, on topic!

Goodness.

Requiring a license to carry is an infringement and I have always said so.

I have not chosen to accept it.

Read the posts on OC and you will see where I stand.

The government needs battling.

Anygunanywhere

[brianko]

Jeez brianko, don't get him started.

Sorry about that...pretend I didn't go there

[brianko]

There seems to be some discussion here about training requirements for on-campus carry:

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... &sk=t&sd=d

No, I'm not suggesting we move over there...maybe if I can get some of them to come over here...

[chewy555]

Jeez brianko, don't get him started.

Sorry about that...pretend I didn't go there

Its too late for that.

Now, I will say what I would like to say on all of this from today.
I think that it is safe to say that we all think that we should be able to carry under our CHL in schools. Now where we all differ is when and how we should be able to carry. I can see both sides of what is being said, but I happen to belive that if I have a CHL and it is legal for me to carry then no extra training is needed to carry there. Do I think that it would be good to have extra training, yes, BUT not as a means for me to be able to carry in anyplace. Extra training is good in anything. At this point in time I do not happen to have the extra money to get the extra training that I want. Does this mean that I should not be able to carry places until I get the extra money to get the training? NO, it does not.
Just talking about schools right now, as the son of a 25+ year teacher and the grandson of a 40+ year teacher, some of what has been said about teachers not known how to handle kids in a large group is wrong. I know that my mother and grandmother both went through classes in how to deal with kids in a large group. Its part of the classes that they had to take to stay teachers. Would this have been usefull if they had had a CHL and a handgun on them? YES. Did the class have anything at the time to do with handguns? NO.

[flintknapper]

Really? Then let the record show that "certain situations" refer to the scenarios I've posted about in several previous posts; namely, a gunman on campus. If I knew it was that easy, I would have fixed my oversight a long time ago!

Gunman works fine, now here a question for you: You can not see ANY circumstance where an armed teacher (with only state mandated training) would be able to stop a gunman? Is the ONLY scenario possible (to you) one of a highly skilled gunman (hostage in hand) hiding behind two hundred students who are stacked like cord wood in a 20'X20' space. Is it even remotely possible a teacher might encounter the gunman in a bathroom as he prepared for his attack, in a parking lot, at a classroom door (during class), or any other scenario that didn't have a "wad" of students directly in line? Is SWAT like training really necessary to engage a person under those conditions?

I've since modified my position, see previous posts.

Saw the previous posts already. I see no "modification" at all, only the statement that you are "considering" changing/modifying your position. So get busy!

I do not have an issue with CHL carry in the other venues you list (venues which I am quite comfortable carrying in).

Then you are being inconsistent.

I choose to debate only schools, because that is the domain I know best, and am most familiar with.

Well....this statement alone is proof that you have issues with other venues, please tell us which ones.

I see students compacted in schools in ways that I don't see happening in theaters, churches, or stores, because quite often there is a lower density of individuals in these areas than in some schools.

You mean you see students "compacted" at certain places, at certain times in school... in densities greater than some churches, stores, etc...(not that it is necessary to have them packed like sardines in order to hit one of them). Clearly, the decision to fire at a threat must be made with consideration to who else is in the line of fire. This holds true in any environment.

I also believe, although I have only anecdotal evidence to back this up, that the group dynamics of 2500 students aged 14-18 (or thereabouts) is probably quite a bit different from the group dynamics of a group of shoppers or theatergoers. I can say with some certainty that the collective maturity of said school group will most likely be lower than that of a typical group of shoppers or theatergoers, and this might require some additional training on the part of CHL holders. I can see a group of students reacting in ways that might be completely unexpected by an unsuspecting CHL holder who is not prepared for it.

I think it is fair to say that any group (over age 12) taken from the general public will have basically the same reaction to gunfire. Some will freeze, some will take cover, some will flee, some will help others, some will wait for help.

In case the point has been lost: I'm all for CHL carry anywhere and everywhere, but with some reservations (not exceptions). In the case of schools, I believe some level of training would be beneficial for the safety of our children. Anyone who finds fault with this simply doesn't understand the bond most teachers have with their students.

No one is arguing that more training wouldn't be better. Some, (including me) do not think it should be mandated because:

It would tend to discourage teachers from carrying (added time, expense to train)
It is unecessary...since a teachers involvement "should" be limited anyway.
It sets a precedent to require a higher level of training for other CHL's that carry in populated areas.

[bdickens]

Wow. This thread sure went south.

[flintknapper]

Wow. This thread sure went south.

True.

I didn't expect this one to get "Frankied", but it did. (No offense FTY)

Still, some very good points were made and a little "food for thought" presented.

The subject itself...is an interesting one to me, and something we will no doubt be hearing more about in the future.

[Excaliber]

Just wanted to let everybody here know that Sam Houston State University will be conducting an Active Shooter scenario soon on campus, and I will be involved. I will for sure be setting the cameras and computers up that will be recording it (I work for LEMIT), and I am trying to get involved as either one of the CHL's, or shooters.

It'll be a live scenario where actual police officers will be called in to a arrest/neutralize a shooter/shooters that will be going from room to room with a most likely a paintball gun. There will be embedded CHLers within the rooms that will also have the task of attempting to take out the shooter when they feel they can. The officers will not know who is the shooter(s) and who is the CHL'ers.

Good stuff, and it will be very interesting to see how it turns out!

Fantastic! I'd like to see the same thing done WITHOUT the embedded CHL' s and compare the casualties.

I wholeheartedly agree. This could throw actual light on a subject that usually only generates heat.

[Excaliber]

I think it is fair to say that any group (over age 12) taken from the general public will have basically the same reaction to gunfire. Some will freeze, some will take cover, some will flee, some will help others, some will wait for help.

As long as we're talking about humans, Flint is right on here as usual.

Some studies of actual incidents go so far as to predict the general percentages of people who will go with each response. These don't change with age or occupation. The only thing that is predictive of how an individual will respond is that person's prior training to handle sudden emergencies.

[brianko]

Wow. This thread sure went south.

Yes, I was somewhat saddened to see that happen too. Trying to dig up dirt (unsuccesssfully, I might add) on someone who doesn't agree with your point of view is pretty low, a level I'd expect the other side to stoop to. Notice how quickly they dropped out of the debate when their game was called!

Looking forward to more intelligent debate on the topic in the future. In the meantime, school has started, and it's time to devote my attention to my students...

[troglodyte]

Yes, I was somewhat saddened to see that happen too. Trying to dig up dirt (unsuccesssfully, I might add) on someone who doesn't agree with your point of view is pretty low, a level I'd expect the other side to stoop to. Notice how quickly they dropped out of the debate when their game was called!

I dropped out because I choose not to argue (because it has progressed, I believe on both sides into an argument) with those I know I cannot persuade. I learned that with my last principal. Not worth the time. The fact that others can read the discourse provides them with a new point of view or something to think about so not all is bad.

You started this topic with a broad sweeping statement concerning how no CHL teacher was ready to carry in schools. If you would have left it at your admission that you were not ready but would like training and maybe even extra training should be recommended you would not be constantly defending your position(s). While I look forward to more training, I am prepared, with my lowly CHL class and a mindset (not machoism), to engage a BG at my school. Whether it is with a firearm, fire extinguisher, or FIST OF FIRE I will do what I have to do and can do. I am fully aware that I may not be able to do anything and that I may not make it home but I will try to get my kids back to their homes.

And, like you, school started last week and I don't have the time. So, unless some new revelation is made in this thread I bow out. There are certianly those much better qualified than me to continue.

I hope you have a good year. Ours started great. Love your kids and keep them safe...I know you will.

[brianko]

Further evidence of the need to support additional training for CHL's who will carry in schools is provided by Harrold ISD superindendent David Thweatt. In comments made to the Associated Press, and carried by the DMN (8/26/2008):

He (Thweatt) declined to say how many employees carry guns but said each one first must be approved by the board based on his or her personality and reaction to a crisis. In addition to training required for state concealed weapons license, they also must be trained to handle crisis intervention and hostage situations.

This is what I've been saying all along: State-mandated CHL training along is not sufficient to determine whether or not a CHL holder is prepared to carry in a school environment. In fact, Thweatt goes further by stating that the CHL vetting process isn't sufficient to determine how a CHL holder will react to a crisis.

Now, those of you who are still willing to condemn my position should also be willing to step up to the plate and condemn Thweatt's position as well. You can't have it both ways.

[jimlongley]

Further evidence of the need to support additional training for CHL's who will carry in schools is provided by Harrold ISD superindendent David Thweatt. In comments made to the Associated Press, and carried by the DMN (8/26/2008):

He (Thweatt) declined to say how many employees carry guns but said each one first must be approved by the board based on his or her personality and reaction to a crisis. In addition to training required for state concealed weapons license, they also must be trained to handle crisis intervention and hostage situations.

This is what I've been saying all along: State-mandated CHL training along is not sufficient to determine whether or not a CHL holder is prepared to carry in a school environment. In fact, Thweatt goes further by stating that the CHL vetting process isn't sufficient to determine how a CHL holder will react to a crisis.

Now, those of you who are still willing to condemn my position should also be willing to step up to the plate and condemn Thweatt's position as well. You can't have it both ways.

Ok, I'll step up to the plate, I condemn your position, and that of Thweatt, CHL's, based solely on their possession of same, should be allowed to carry in schools. No one knows how they will react in a crisis, not this one, nor the next, nor the one after that, and no test can adequately predict the reaction to any one particular crisis.

For the record, I wasn't trying to have it both ways anyway, I just dropped out of the thing because you were using too many anti-gun tactics and strategies, which I feel is dishonest, and didn't want to contribute to further devolution.