TexasCHLforum.com

This just in...

Board member: Let Lumberton teachers carry guns
By RACHAEL HARTMAN
September 11, 2009
Posted: September 11, 2009, 4:53 PM CDT Last updated: September 11, 2009, 5:05 PM CDT

A Lumberton school board member's suggestion Thursday night to allow specific people to legally carry concealed weapons on the district's campuses will be looked at, the board president said.

Peter Morrison made the proposal during a board meeting, board president Margaret Cruse said, and "There was enough interest by the board to investigate it since it was proposed."

However, she said that doesn't indicate that anyone is in favor of it or that the board will take action.

"It is in Dr. (Ron) Sims' hands now to research the proposal. We are going to be doing research on it and seeing where we go from there," Cruse said, referring to the district's superintendent.

Lumberton Police Chief Danny Sullins, who was not at the meeting, nevertheless knows where he stands on the proposal.

"I have a concern with people carrying guns on campus; peacefully or not peacefully, lawfully or not lawfully," Sullins said.

Sullins also said that it doesn't take long for police officers to arrive at any of the Lumberton schools when they are called.

Lumberton is a bedroom community near Beaumont. About 8000 population. Personally I like Mr. Morrison's proposal. But I doubt it will make it. The rest of the board is not for it, including one board member who is currently waiting for his CHL.

Has anyone asked Chief Sullins what would make a person who carries a concealed weapon off campus more of a danger if he carried said weapon on campus?

Edit: Double post.

It's good to see some school administrator's are thinking of the well being of their students and staff. I hope it passes.

But it will not set a precedent, as it has already been done in a town near Wichita Falls:

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=27089" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I think it's a good idea.

joe817 wrote:It's good to see some school administrator's are thinking of the well being of their students and staff. I hope it passes.

But it will not set a precedent, as it has already been done in a town near Wichita Falls:

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=27089" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I think it's a good idea.

The town you mention near Wichita Falls actually came up in the discussion, but was deemed irrelevant because they were a small town with no PD, and the response time was about 15 minutes. Chief Sullins believes his department's response time is better than that. He's right, of course. But I doubt he could be there quicker than a CHL who is already on campus.

I think the simple fact that it is under consideration and was not immediately ruled out shows a trend in the right direction.

Rome wasn't built in a day... and even they kept the legions out of the city :)

Baby steps forward are still steps forward. I look forward to the day when people realize that law abiding, trained, responsible adults who routinely carry loaded weapons in public (gee, that could describe cops or CHLs... imagine that!) don't suddenly become a menace to society when they cross some invisible boundary line into a "gun free" zone. Maybe around the same time, they will realize that only law abiding people follow laws that require voluntary compliance (like not carrying a weapon in a particular place).

preacher wrote:This just in...

Board member: Let Lumberton teachers carry guns
By RACHAEL HARTMAN
September 11, 2009
Posted: September 11, 2009, 4:53 PM CDT Last updated: September 11, 2009, 5:05 PM CDT

A Lumberton school board member's suggestion Thursday night to allow specific people to legally carry concealed weapons on the district's campuses will be looked at, the board president said.

Peter Morrison made the proposal during a board meeting, board president Margaret Cruse said, and "There was enough interest by the board to investigate it since it was proposed."

However, she said that doesn't indicate that anyone is in favor of it or that the board will take action.

"It is in Dr. (Ron) Sims' hands now to research the proposal. We are going to be doing research on it and seeing where we go from there," Cruse said, referring to the district's superintendent.

Lumberton Police Chief Danny Sullins, who was not at the meeting, nevertheless knows where he stands on the proposal.

"I have a concern with people carrying guns on campus; peacefully or not peacefully, lawfully or not lawfully," Sullins said.

Sullins also said that it doesn't take long for police officers to arrive at any of the Lumberton schools when they are called.

Lumberton is a bedroom community near Beaumont. About 8000 population. Personally I like Mr. Morrison's proposal. But I doubt it will make it. The rest of the board is not for it, including one board member who is currently waiting for his CHL.

Somehow that just don't cut it. God forbid anything happen, but we carry in the event the unthinkable happens. Should tragedy strike I wonder how many parents would be ok with the explenation of "It didn't take us long to get here...". A 30 second response time is inifinitly better than a 60 second response time much less a 2 to 5 minute response time. I acknowledge I don't know anything about this "Chief" Sullins, but he sounds a bit left handed to me. And by chance does he wear a big red nose and oversized shoes?

Just remember:

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

It doesn't matter if it is 2 or 5 minutes.

How many aimed shots can you take in 2 minutes?
Do you really believe that some thug can take less?
Are you willing to bet your child's life on that answer?

Mithras61 wrote:Just remember:

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

It doesn't matter if it is 2 or 5 minutes.

How many aimed shots can you take in 2 minutes?
Do you really believe that some thug can take less?
Are you willing to bet your child's life on that answer?

It's important to hold folks accountable for the consequences of their plans.

When someone suggests a plan for responding to an active shooter incident, examine it for the likely casualty count, which is determined by adding up the time in minutes and multiplying by 4 (the average number of shots fired by an active shooter per minute - some fire much faster). If the plan calls for letting the folks who are confronted and can't escape call a time out and wait for the police, here's what you need to look at:

- time for first call to be successfully communicated to law enforcement
- time for dispatch to assess a cascade of calls with conflicting information and dispatch first 1 or 2 units
- travel time for units to arrive at scene
- time for enough units to arrive at scene to meet department's active shooter entry guidelines
- time for entry team to make entry and neutralize offender

The total minutes times 4 figure you arrive at here is the casualty figure the planner considers acceptable. You may or may not agree with the numbers he is willing to tolerate.

7 minutes total for the arrival of the first officer is a great response time. Few departments can consistently do better than that, other than by sheer luck in isolated situations. Also keep in mind that arrival does not equal effective intervention. Many departments forbid a single officer to make an entry, and many require 4 or more. Some departments don't have that many officers on duty, let alone available to respond in time. It goes downhill from there.

Here are some facts that might help in these considerations:

In a study of approximately 100 active shooter incidents by a police trainer in Ohio, police intervention made a difference in casualty counts in 6% of the cases because active shooters typically plan their attacks to be over before police can intervene in order to guarantee their success.

Plans that totally fail 94% of the time don't meet my requirements for a good idea.

The factor that most influenced the outcome of an incident was immediate action by people at the scene at the time. If armed good guys are present, the outcome has a good chance of being much less bad than it would have been otherwise because they can effectively engage from a distance. If the good guys have to go with throwing staplers and textbooks in order to close the distance and engage a shooter hand to hand while waiting for police, that may still be the best option for them, but you can expect higher casualties.

This article concerning some of the leading edge thinking in the law enforcement community may be of interest to our members.

Big high schools here in the Houston area all have 3 or 4 armed police officers on staff at all times. I think, if they can afford it, they should consider hiring a retired officer to do security for the school, it would save a lot of grief about the teacher that possesses the weapon being untrained.

Maybe that's not possible, but I'd trust an ex-LEO more than Mr. Daniels, 4th grade Geography teacher.

karl wrote:Big high schools here in the Houston area all have 3 or 4 armed police officers on staff at all times. I think, if they can afford it, they should consider hiring a retired officer to do security for the school, it would save a lot of grief about the teacher that possesses the weapon being untrained.

Maybe that's not possible, but I'd trust an ex-LEO more than Mr. Daniels, 4th grade Geography teacher.

That seems to be a somewhat narrow view of things. How proficient is Mr. Daniels? How often does he practice? Does he shoot IDPA? Does he take classes on self defense and such? What about the retired officer (remember, many of us get far more time at the range than active duty police officers)?

But let's set that all aside for a moment, and focus on what is really significant. My son's high school has over 1500 students attending, and four police officers providing security. The school is large enough that even with officers on-site, the chances of them observing any incident in time to react and stop it is pretty small. More armed responders (teachers, administrative staff, etc.) generally increases the likelihood that one will be able to respond in a timely fashion. I am confident that simply allowing teachers that choose to get a CHL to carry in the school will not turn them suddenly into crazed fools that will shoot the students randomly (or even not so randomly) any more than allowing them to carry in the mall would, and will increase the likelihood that they will be able to respond if needed.

karl wrote:Big high schools here in the Houston area all have 3 or 4 armed police officers on staff at all times. I think, if they can afford it, they should consider hiring a retired officer to do security for the school, it would save a lot of grief about the teacher that possesses the weapon being untrained.

Maybe that's not possible, but I'd trust an ex-LEO more than Mr. Daniels, 4th grade Geography teacher.

Better hope that that the ex-LEO was not the same guy that shot himself in the leg a few weeks back.

I have no basis for this statistic, but I thought I read somewhere that ex-leo's have their guns go off a lot more than us plain ole gun owners?

Mithras61 wrote:
That seems to be a somewhat narrow view of things. How proficient is Mr. Daniels? How often does he practice? Does he shoot IDPA? Does he take classes on self defense and such? What about the retired officer (remember, many of us get far more time at the range than active duty police officers)?

The school is large enough that even with officers on-site, the chances of them observing any incident in time to react and stop it is pretty small. More armed responders (teachers, administrative staff, etc.) generally increases the likelihood that one will be able to respond in a timely fashion... and will increase the likelihood that they will be able to respond if needed.

Very true. My stance is that from a family new to guns, and besides me, not very comfortable with them. I do agree, however, that the staff member chosen will definitely have proficiency with the weapon. I do like the idea of teachers with CHLs in addition to on-staff officers.

If I may interject, I think we're taking the wrong approach to this subject. When this topic comes up, we all come up with a variety of reasons why carry should be allowed, how it can save lives, etc. While these are all good points, they keep us on the defensive. Instead of trying to justify concealed carry, we should force the other side to explain why it should be disallowed. Even if concealed carry never saves a life, we should still be allowed to do it because we live in a free society. If someone wants to restrict my liberties, the burden of proof lies on them. The next time someone tells you carry shouldn't be allowed at a school, ask them "Why not?". "Why are you opposed to freedom?" "Is it because you don't value our children?" "Do you believe that gun owners are incompetent?" "Did you know that police shoot more innocent bystanders than CHL'ers do?" "Name the last time someone with a lawfully carried gun used it commit a crime at school." "Isn't your argument sexist since women are generally less strong than men and thus less able to defend themselves?"

Did someone say ex-LEO?

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=vUuZ88XYdFI[/youtube]