Armed teacher - But get training first?

Educator-Protector Program where teachers who undergo annual firearm training can securely carry guns at school to respond to an intruder or active shooter. … also provides legal liability protection to teachers who participate in the annual training in the event they accidentally harm a student or other staff member…

So they were serious. I’m not sure what this law changes since a CCW Permit holder can already carry in a classroom. I “Think” it adds the Liability Protection if the teacher attends the “Educator-Protector Program”.


Rhetorical question: What the heck is a “gun safety group”?

These gun control advocates are getting more and more sneaky with their names. USed to be it was obvious, “Handgun Control, Inc” etc.

These days it seems like THE operative word for gun control is “safety”


The words “Safe” & “Safety”?
“We’ll keep you safe, we’ll look out for your safety, just give up you freedom and give up your liberty…”.


Sounds like the training requirement is only a half day?

I would want a heck of a lot more than a half day of training if I thought I might have to respond to an active murderer event in a chaotic school setting.

Hopefully the training focuses on firearm safety, security and retention. Active school murderer events are incredibly rare. If a significant number of poorly trained teachers start carrying in chaotic classroom environments the odds of a negligent action with a firearm will go up significantly. There have already been a few incidents, like the one where a student found a handgun left by a teacher in the bathroom. Fortunately the student went right to another teacher to report the firearm and no one was hurt.

It would only take one or two injuries to children to potentially shut down school staff carry everywhere. Including in the States that have very solid vetting, training and psychological testing programs. Schools have a responsibility to ensure the kids under their charge are in the safest environment possible. Which is why I believe properly trained and vetted armed staff are a good idea.


Statistically, and I’m no fan of Statistics, Which has happened more often?
A scum bag rolls into a school and kills multiple children with a firearm
A teacher looses control of their firearm and kills multiple children

Seems to be a straw argument.


So, the thing about generating a statistic for that would be…we have to lead with this question:

How many opportunities have there been for a teacher to have a firearm in a classroom which they could lose control of?

So Sharmock’s point is not without merit.

It’s a very difficult situation though, to support what is essentially gun control for fear of the teacher losing control of the firearm.

But, yeah…his point is not wrong and shoudl at least be taken into consideration

Teachers carrying in a classroom, around teenagers some of which will be 16-18 year old violent criminals themselves, we do need to consider how well the teachers maintain control/absolute secrecy


It will only take one or two injuries or deaths caused by a teacher’s negligence to turn the vast majority of people against armed staffed. There are also quite a few teachers I read about that likely aren’t safe to be armed in their own homes let alone around a bunch of kids. Many here have posted articles about those unhinged teachers.

I am very particular about firearm safety. I don’t let my son anywhere near my father-in-law when he is handling a firearm. The guy is completely unsafe. He always complains about how RSO kick him off the range and wonders why. I wouldn’t knowingly place him under the care of an armed adult unless I knew that adult could handle firearms safely.

I think it is a very bad idea to place my son, or any child, in the care of an armed teacher with no or limited firearms safety training. Especially when that teacher is already distracted and frazzled by the 20 other 8 year olds in the class.

1 Like

Adding further-

The odds of my son ever being faced with an active murderer in school are incredibly low. If he was around poorly trained teachers every day the odds of being involved in a negligent firearm incident would likely be significantly higher.

There was just an incident where a kid brought an airsoft glock replica pistol to school because the teacher told the students they could bring a fidget toy to class. How does an armed and untrained teacher respond to seeing a kid fidgeting with a pistol at their desk?

I want armed and trained staff at my son’s school in the incredibly unlikely case an active murderer shows up. But I don’t want to decrease his day to day safety in order to prepare for unlikely events. With proper vetting and training for school staff the kids can be very safe and the staff can be prepared to respond to emergencies.

1 Like

Going back to the "Someone might get hurt by an unknown someone in unknown circumstances argument?

I guess it’s like I said on the other thread
“We’ll keep you safe, We’ll protect your safety, just give up your liberty and give up your freedom…”.

1 Like

In my mind there is a big difference between letting untrained people walk down a public street and letting untrained people take responsibility for the care and safety of a group of children.

I expect my son’s school to make sure he is in a safe environment and being taught and watched by people who are vetted and qualified to do so properly and safely. The school would face significant liability if a child under their care was hurt due to the negligence of one of their untrained or insufficiently trained employees.


Reason for Covid lockdowns.

What happened to “common sense” gun laws?

1 Like

I get that.

It’s not an “unknown someone” being the training/control concern, it’s an employee of the school who has some sort of care/custody/control/responsibility over children.

So, that may be a difference-enough to consider here

1 Like

Teachers are credentialed
Armed security for hire are licensed.

Now, combine the two and I get the extra training requirement.


I didn’t read anywhere in the article about the description of the training. People misunderstand that a CCW doesn’t prepare you to defend yourself or others, it provides the state in which you’re applying, evidence that you’re up to date on current concealed carry laws and are competent with a firearm. Training to react to an active shooter or attacker requires a bit more skill and knowledge than a CCW, however, I am more concerned with the part of the article that states the gun violence prevention group wants the bill vetoed because it puts teachers and students at further risk. I’d like to know how they came to that conclusion.

1 Like

In many States, including here in AZ the CCW provides no such evidence. All I need to do to renew my permit is pay a renewal fee and fill out some paperwork every five years to get a new permission slip. I believe it does let them run a new background check every 5 years to ensure I have not been convicted of any crimes. The requirements to originally get my license did not prove I was competent or had an understanding of the laws. That is all on me.


I have been licensed to carry by 4 different states.

Only 1 of those 4 permits required any form of training whatsoever, and that training could have literally been a hunter safety taken out of state 50 years ago.

What a lot of the [tangent can of worms alert] gun control advocates don’t realize when they support control laws like requiring a permit/don’t like permitless aka Constitutional carry, is that tens of millions of people in many states for decades have been carrying on licenses that required no training whatsoever.

A great deal of the permits all this time were nothing more than proving that you could pay money and pass a background check. And if you couldn’t pass a background check and wanted to commit crimes, you’d do it even without a permit so what was the point of the permit requirement again?

Sorry, totally tangential rant and somewhat opposite what I’m saying here

BUT I definitely see your point that there is ABSOLUTELY a difference between being armed on your own as a private individual or even while working in most jobs, vs being armed while officially supervising/caring for other people’s children especially as a government employee and where parents probably don’t have a choice in which armed person is supervising their children

I didn’t use to see it that way but I was swayed by logical points in a thread on this sight a year or so ago mabye


Are we ignoring the idea that a vast majority of private/teacher carriers are actually responsible and would in fact be capable and willing to do the right thing? I fear we are casting a blanket over armed teachers because a few, I would suspect a small minority, might get it wrong.

Reminds me of ‘Knight and Day’


Finally a common sense gun law. Finally.

1 Like

@Nathan57 … Happy Anniversary!