I can see/guess most teachers would never have thought to “own” or carry. Someone else might have shared this link, but just in case you’ve not yet seen it, it mentions free training for some school teachers. It’s a non profit. Interesting,
2 Likes
-
Actually, yes, I was on a force that had investigators who carried concealed. We had smaller model Sigs just for them. The patrol officers open carried, but they had big full-sized service pistols.
-
Please remember this is the U.S. Concealed Carry Association. Few people here are going to accept your argument that plebes should not be able to carry concealed, or that only criminals carry concealed.
There are plenty of reasons why a teacher might (should) opt to carry concealed. Many of the reasons have been stated multiple times in this thread, including: anonymity of the armed teachers, avoiding harassment, alleviating concerns of those scared by firearms, and keeping curious students away from firearms (because they don’t know who has them).
2 Likes
Yes, this company benefits from infringement just like several “2A” companies that would literally be useless without the infringements. Cops are citizens so they would also be plebeians as you so eloquently described us. Just because those investigators choose to hide the firearms doesn’t make it faster or more efficient. Your position is one of weakness and fear. Afraid to be judged by others. So much so that you put yourself into deep concealment just to avoid public scrutiny. It’s not safer, it’s not faster, and for the most part it’s not physically more comfortable. You’re not making yourself a target but sending a clear message to any would be bad actors. If I were a teacher I wouldn’t want a compact pistol jabbing my appendix all day that doesn’t shoot as effectively and is harder to draw. I’d want a full or combat sized shooter on the hip at the ready. This way they carry comfortably every day. Your concealment argument is for another thread. I guess if you need to go under cover you could benefit by just carrying your back up but again, that doesn’t mean you’re safer for it.
Because having a gun is a quintessential aspect of being a police officer ‘on the street’ or in public. If you don’t have one when you’re working outside of a totally secure facility like a prison or similar, you aren’t a police officer (there may be exceptionally rare exceptions to this, but it is definitely ‘the rule’).
So, everybody knows the cop in their uniform on the job has a gun. Everybody knows.
Given that, the carry method that allows a full size pistol, quickly and openly accessible to the officer, with the most (reasonably) possible active retention features, makes complete sense.
I mean, really, we’re going to have cops out there with their bat belts of gadgets, a badge, body armor…but that empty space on their belt at 3:00 doesn’t appear to have anything so nobody is going to know there is a gun there even though every cop has a gun there?
Additionally, the first/lowest level of force is Officer Presence. Part of officer presence, is that they are armed
For regular private citizens though, most don’t have a gun. So the ones that also don’t have a gun, well, they might. But concealed, you won’t know who is who
3 Likes
Everyone should have one. That should be the norm. Especially teachers so they can help keep your kids safe. No need to hide your gun. It provides no advantage. No need to be ashamed. That kind of attitude hurts the second amendment. The age old saying goes a cop will be five minutes away when you have less than one. They are not the first show of force in my opinion. Let the teachers carry. Take away the gun free zones. In this system it’s important for individuals to be able to take care of themselves. Anywhere they go.
We can agree or disagree on whether or not everyone should have [conceal carry] a gun, but the reality is, the majority do not, no matter what state you are in.
It’s not an attitude to recognize the fact that most people out and about doing their daily stuff are not carrying a gun. Therefore, if you conceal your gun adequately, probably other people won’t know you have a gun.
I agree, take away the gun free zones.
4 Likes
The more we conceal alone, the less those other people will carry, the more restrictions we’ll suffer, and the less employees like teachers will be allowed to exercise their God given right to defend themselves as stated in the constitution. All love brother, we can absolutely agree to disagree on some of our opinions. Communication of disagreements is the mother of understanding.
3 Likes
I have observed the opposite. People carrying openly seem to lead to more restrictions because the majority of the population in most places don’t like it. Example, it used to be legal to open carry an unloaded handgun in CA, so people made a big deal out of carrying an unloaded handgun and also carrying magazines, openly. Notice I said “used to be” legal.
I get the idea, that with everybody concealing, the general public doesn’t realize how man people do or don’t carry, and if everybody that carried did so openly, people would realize how many carriers there are.
But my experience tells me that more people open carrying does not directly lead to more other people carrying
2 Likes
And I do worry about how often this will happen. In my experience, most people who carry concealed, are not constantly (if ever) ready for a gun grab attempt…nor would they be if they carried openly.
The firearm as an equalizer doesn’t work so hot when a younger faster stronger fitter more violent individual (or three) surprise attacks you targeting your gun while you are just out living your life and the gun is still in the holster.
5 Likes
It’s great training.
1 Like
I don’t think a teacher would have to worry about three thugs surprise attacking them. It’s just not that kind of attack you have to worry as much about in a school setting. As far as the Cali open carry unloaded silliness, it’s not as if California legislators need any excuse to infringe. They’re gonna do that no matter what. For every one of those “gun grab” stories like the one from Georgia, there’s a thousand that would read, assault or robbery never occurred due to bad actors realizing they were surrounded by dozens of armed citizens. Let the teachers carry any way they want to carry. I would recommend having a big boy on the hip at the ready with a compact tucked away in deep concealment for backup.
Not being a smart Alec, but curious as to how much you’ve studied school shootings and violence in schools.
1 Like
They would.
Local to me a recent big thing (at least locally) was a planned attack on a teacher with other students ready with their cell phones to film it and immediately post it to social media/I think some live streamed it.
This is reality.
I wish there could always be “dozens of armed citizen’s” surrounding a would be attack, but, there aren’t…open or otherwise…think about it…if there were dozens of concealed carriers around whenever someone was attacked…reality would be different than what it is.
I’m a supporter of allowing teachers to carry, but, this aspect is a concern for real
2 Likes
Take away this ability and they would most likely never do it, there would be nothing in it for them, no likes, no attention.
1 Like
It’s not possible to prevent students from having phones in school.
It’s also just an example of, yes, students will pre plan coordinated attacks on teachers. In the context of this discussion, especially in some schools, multiple students (and these could be street savvy and and hardened 14-18 year old boys/men) in a coordinated planned attack on a teacher to get the gun they know the teacher has is a real possibility to consider (even just one such student may be no match for the majority of teachers especially with a surprise attack)
Do it in a camera blind spot, do it fast, heck do it with masks on, and then the gun just disappears…it’s definitely a consideration. Concealment for teachers carrying on the job should, ideally, I think, be as good as concealment of commercial passenger pilots who carry concealed.
3 Likes
No, actually, my position is one of security. I’ve argued several times that it’s a deterrent to would-be shooters if they know there could be armed teachers in the building, but they don’t know who they are or where they’re at.
You have a lot to say about me being weak and afraid because I carry concealed. If that makes you feel better, go for it. When I studied security, we typically didn’t lay out our capabilities for the world to see.
4 Likes
Even in private school context where they are not allowed, they still have them, although they keep them out of sight most of the time.
1 Like
It’s fake training that tells us to hide our firearms for a tactical advantage. In no way, most of the time, is it beneficial to put your firearm in deep concealment.If that we true, every cop and soldier would be undercover all the time. People go undercover not for a tactical advantage but to trick somebody into doing something they wouldn’t in front of authorities. Let’s be those authorities that people don’t want to do something they shouldn’t be doing. No need to hide unless you plan on tricking someone. Carry both, on the hip and under concealment. I’m not saying you’re weak and apologize for not being clear. It’s a position of weakness that weakens the 2nd amendment and I think was designed for precisely that. Education(training) can be dangerous if it intends to harm you.
I don’t really want to get into a debate over concealed carry vs open carry. As I’ve long said, each person has to figure out his/her own self defense strategy. Me, I would prefer that others around me not know what tools I have available. It’s not a question of tactical advantage; otherwise I’d just be walking around with my rifle at the ready. It’s about keeping my cards facing me until I have to reveal them.
Remember that “Surprise” is one of the principles of war. Regardless of how one chooses to carry, there is also no tactical advantage in advertising who is armed, how they are armed, and where they will be when an active shooter enters a building.
4 Likes
I agree. If there’s an active shooter, who will they shout first? The guy they know has a gun. Who will they shoot second? Those closest to the guy with the gun. That would be my wife and kids. I think open carry potentially puts them in harms way. Dave Grossman, on the other hand, loves open carry. Because they are likely to shoot the open carry guy first giving him as a concealed carrier a tactical advantage.
We can disagree on this. But I’ll side with Dave Grossman any time I can.