I would change this to “should teachers be allowed to be armed”.
I would not want to force a teacher to be armed if the did not believe in it.
As for Open verses Concealed I think that needs to be looked at more closely than a one way or the other answer. If the teacher is 5’ 10" and 110 lbs. with no hand to hand training and all but 3 of the students could over power the teacher one on one, I think concealed would be the better way to go. On the other hand if your teacher looks like the Mountain from GoTs (if you are not familiar with him think The Rock only two to three times bigger) He or She can do whatever they want!
This is a major debate that has gained some traction in Indiana, lately. We are doing A LOT for common sense gun rights. I am glad to say that our state just legalized FREE handgun licenses, not constitutional carry (Yet), but free 5 yr license to carry, with the standard checks. Lifetime Is only $40 not $120 (wonder if i can get some money back?). The license was a way to still ensure reciprocity with other states, which Constitutional carry would not, for non residents.
This same bill allows teachers the right to carry in school (with board permission and some training). Huge step forward, from where we were. Also, church carry (When the church is attached to a school) has been changed.
Jim Lucas is my district state rep and he has speer headed most of this legislation.
My argument is and always has been FORCING people to be defenseless (i.e. GUNFREE ZONE) is illegal. We all have a right to defend ourselves. The best part of the legislation that also just passed is Jim’s justified self defense. If the shooting is found to be lawful and justified, you CANNOT file civil suit against the shooter, under state law.
I’m in favor of it IF the teacher has had more than just CC training and assuming that the teacher has the desire to carry concealed. One thing that does concern me is if a teacher wants to carry “off body”. I’m not certain that would be prudent nor practical. If said teacher wants to carry their firearm in a purse/bag designed for concealed carrying I am not sure that would be wise. Too easy to set the bag down and get sidetracked. Before you know it a student decides to look in the teacher’s purse.
This is my same thought process. I believe, just do away with Soft target Zoones(gun free), and if the teacher, or anyone else has a ccw license, party on. Inside a school, I would stipulate that a teacher who wishes to be armed, must keep it on body at all times.
I’m really torn on this one. As a USAF firearms instructor for 20 years then as an elementary teacher for 20+ years I see pros and cons. Schools most definitely need armed staff on campus as part of a comprehensive security plan. Teachers however are bound to their students. I could never leave my students to go after an active shooter. I would bu using the myriad of other prevention techniques we were taught since Columbine. I’ve listened to the " I have my CCW so why cant I be armed" argument from many well meaning but not really trained teachers. Shooting in a high stress, crowded environment requires more training and skill than most people can imagine or ever receive. We need to have armed security in schools but it cannot be accomplished on the budget plan.
I read and hear this alot and honestly I’m guilty of not explaining it better. I don’t think teachers should be armed to go after an active shooter. It would be to defend their lives and the lives of the students with them. What most believe is the knowing that they would meet resistance would deter most shooting and I believe that logic, but worst case scenario I want anyone who is legal to do so, to have every tool available to them to protect life.
What about on private property, @Sheepdog556? Should our right to carry outweigh the property owners rights for their property?
This one still bugs me - even after going through that other thread. If we apply it to 2A and self-defense, then it can be applied to wearing a helmet (if the government requires people to wear a helmet and they still die from an accident, is the government then responsible for the death? Or vise versa? If they don’t require a helmet is the government liable for any deaths that result from not wearing a helmet?) There are too many loopholes and ways to play the system with making the government liable.
This may be an unpopular opinion but NO, I believe that if a property owner does not want firearms on their property that should be respected. However with schools and other tax dollar funded properties, those are NOT private property. Tho some officials would argue.
As for the helmet situation I think the government should stay out of our lives. (Same with seatbelts) if it were about safety then smoking, fast food, tobacco and… would be illegal. If they care about our safety its only because they’re afraid to lose revenue
Sheepdog thanks for your reply. It does make sense to have protection in the classroom. In my district we had layered protection and the possibility of someone getting into a classroom was zero. However there are many transitional spaces vulnerable to attack. I won’t list them for obvious reasons. Again, thanks for your input.
Those that are willing and able should be allowed to do so. Those who cannot or will not handle that responsibility should be free to choose not to. It’s one of my pet peeves that anti-gun people immediately jump on the “You want every teacher to be armed??” band wagon.
Responsibly armed teachers are only a part of the solution. Every school should have armed security in addition to a locked down campus with one way in and one way out for the public. I’ve been researching School Resource Officers, I’m not sure I’m on that bandwagon honestly. SROs are LEOs, their jurisdiction is a particular school. Not only are they there to protect the kids, but they are there to police the kids as well. This is where we’re running into trouble with kids not trusting them and not saying anything.
In my line of Security, we’re first responders that patrol the campus of my company. We’re there to respond to any emergency, whether that’s medical, physical altercation, drunken disorderly, mental breakdown, etc etc etc. Everybody knows we’re there to keep people safe, help in an emergency or step in if there’s another type of problem. We work hard every day to foster trust with our guests and our coworkers. In my opinion, this is the type of Security we need in schools. Armed first responders who kids can look up to as a trusted adult and role model.
For any LEO’s reading, this is not intended to put down any department or SROs, this is just my views and experiences put into thoughts.
TL;DR: Arm the teachers that want that responsibility, lock down the campus, employ armed security trained as first responders from medical issues to fire fighting to verbal judo. In todays society, kids are encouraged not to trust Law Enforcement, so separating school security from Law Enforcement makes sense to me.