• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

John R. Lott, Jr., CPRSC. Should schools have teachers carry guns? AAHB Health Behavior Research December 2018

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,428
Location
Florida
No. The gun community ignorantly aids and abets in the destruction of the 2nd amendment. Stop granting special rights to different classes of people. This is ridiculous.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Just abide by the 2A , let teachers arm themselves as they have a right to do and did for s century and stop all the stupid permits, and requirements that are illegal anyway.
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
315
Location
Planet Earth
Ghost - I agree with what you say with one proviso. Being around "under 18s", the teachers should use holsters with "above average" retention capabilities PLUS those that choose to carry should have some additional training. The cost for that training should be shared equally by the teacher AND the school district. That way, the school knows the teacher has a committment to safety and they are "qualified" and the teacher has "skin in the game" by paying for part of the cost while retaining the "added value" of that training. With that additional training, the school's insurance provider should not raise liability premiums for the school.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,428
Location
Florida
Ghost - I agree with what you say with one proviso. Being around "under 18s", the teachers should use holsters with "above average" retention capabilities PLUS those that choose to carry should have some additional training. The cost for that training should be shared equally by the teacher AND the school district. That way, the school knows the teacher has a committment to safety and they are "qualified" and the teacher has "skin in the game" by paying for part of the cost while retaining the "added value" of that training. With that additional training, the school's insurance provider should not raise liability premiums for the school.
What added rights does one get simply by choosing the occupation of "teacher"?
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,824
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Ghost - I agree with what you say with one proviso. Being around "under 18s", the teachers should use holsters with "above average" retention capabilities PLUS those that choose to carry should have some additional training. The cost for that training should be shared equally by the teacher AND the school district. That way, the school knows the teacher has a committment to safety and they are "qualified" and the teacher has "skin in the game" by paying for part of the cost while retaining the "added value" of that training. With that additional training, the school's insurance provider should not raise liability premiums for the school.
AFAIK, most public school systems are self-insured for liability issues, as are their parent municipalities. Private schools may be another matter. And it is unlikely that an armed teacher who is participates in defending against an active shooter but injures or kills a potential victim of that shooter would enjoy the limited liability of most LEOs.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
In the districts in which I have lived, schools don’t have “parent municipalities”. They have all been their own independent governmental entity, sometimes even spanning multiple municipalities.

At least some, if not all, municipalities carry liability insurance. I have read many news stories about settlements being paid for municipalities by insurance companies.

When I was a teacher, I had to carry liability insurance because I could’ve been held liable for my actions.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If one is going to use a firearm as part of their governmental duties, then training is a reasonable requirement.

Yes, combat trained troops should also require training. The circumstances of a school shooting and the tactics employed would be far different than in, say, Fallujah. Furthermore, the training should include legal training on the civil and criminal laws that the use of the firearm in a school could bump up against.

Caveat: I am against training being required for civilians to carry. Government workers carrying/using firearms on the job is an entirely different matter.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,275
Location
northern wis
I wonder if a combat vet ground-pounder, or mud Marine, would be required to get training.
Requiring training to use a constitutional right is one thing.

Requiring training to preform a certain job skill in another.

Military training isn't always compatible with the civilian world.

I have instructed enough combat vets to realize that many are not firearm guys.

Just like the rest of the population you have some that are and a lot that are not.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,402
Location
White Oak Plantation
Got it. Mud Marines have had quite a bit of experience clearing small, medium, and large structures for active shooters...if ya know whatta mean.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,275
Location
northern wis
My department hired a lot of combat vets some were good shots some were not.

Some were not very good at all.

Some brought some bad habits with them.

Two come to mind one would never engage his safety on his M16 saying we never did in the sand box.

Another would never properly lube is M16 causing him to have numerous malfunctions he said the same thing we didn't do it overseas.

People are people some are good,, some are great, most do not really care.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The issue to me is as simple as this:

Can our laws constitutionally require licensing and training for private citizens to carry? No.

Can our laws constitutionally require licensing and training for people carrying as agents of the government? Of course it can. And it should.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
This is simple. Teachers and staff already have the RTKABA. That government attempts to squash that right is another matter.
. Simply give those teachers and staff their RTKABA back, and the problem takes care of itself. Training and requirements are blatantly unconstitutional to do so.

Teachers used to mostly be armed before the gov got into the act. Nobody was shooting up schools then either
 
Top