• 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

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,265
Location
Kentucky
You seem to confuse "public area" with various private, local, county, state and federal property quite often, Ghost1958. I understand your reasoning. However, I do not agree with it, and neither does the law. Heck, neither does the Constitution, for that matter. Even the feds can't just walk all over private, local, county, and state property without a lawful reason for their presence.

They're called "public schools" because they're open for attendance by school-age children from the general public. They are not, however, open to the general public at large.

As a parent, I really did not want just any teacher carrying firearms at school. While two-thirds of my son's teachers were good people, a third of them were a bit loony. Of the two-thirds who were good people, half showed decent dexterity while the other half were a bit bumble-fingered. Of the half that showed decent dexterity, only a quarter of them had the situational awareness I'd trust with respect to having access to a firearm in constant close proximity to children, adolescents and teens.

2/3 * 1/2 * 1/4 = 0.0833... That's just 1 out of 12 teachers, there, Ghost1958, and teachers are generally a cut above the general populace as it is, at least around these parts.

The steps outlined in A Sensible Plan Towards Armed Teachers weeds out those who:

  1. Don't want to carry firearms
  2. Aren't legally allowed to carry firearms (yes, some teachers have criminal records)
  3. Don't have the basic manual dexterity to safely handle a firearm
  4. Don't have the mental capacity to safely handle firearms (some teachers are on psychotropic drugs)
  5. Aren't responsible enough to safely handle and secure a firearm (scatterbrains)
  6. Don't have the situational awareness to do all of the above in a classroom full of kids.

As temporary guardians of our children, the school systems have the same responsibility to keep them away from those who might intentionally or inadvertently cause them harm as we ourselves would exercise as parents.

Finally, while Lombard Street, Fifth Avenue, Bourbon Street, and every town's Main Street are public areas, despite bearing the name of "public school," the area inside a public school is not lawfully accessible to the general public. It's restricted. Go for a walk around Juniper Way if you want to. It's a nice loop around the Garden of the Gods park. OC or CC, I'll even join you. But you have no Constitutional right to walk into a school, much less a classroom, without a lawful reason for being there:
  1. Student
  2. Teacher
  3. Administrator
  4. Maintenance
  5. Security
  6. Contractor working on a specific and current contract, usually pre-scheduled with the administration for dates and times of access
  7. Parents, to/from the school counselers' office; other areas and times by invitation or arrangement.
  8. Guests by invitation only.

Heck, even law enforcement needs RAS/PC or one of the aforementioned reasons to enter a school without permission.

Thus, your subsequent comment is blatantly incorrect:



If you believe otherwise, then I suggest you tell the military to stop training it's members. Same for the police. Nope, they can't require training -- it's un-Constitutional!



Wrong on both counts. I still have my great-grandmother's teacher employment contract with a county in the state of Oklahoma. If you'll search the Internet, you'll find Rules for Teachers, 1879 and 1915. I'm not sure if those were ever real. My grandmother's employment contract was rather simple, but ran two pages, printed both front and back.

One section is entitled, simply, "ARMS." It reads:

"No school teacher or board official in the employ of the County of X will be armed while on duty. Teachers must allow students to keep and bar arms but will corral arms in a store room during school. Should no store room be available, arms may be arranged, unloaded, in a suitable corner. Students may not access arms during school duty periods except in times of danger."

Another section entitled, "Danger" included provisions for dangerous weather i.e. tornado and blizzards. Teachers were to ring the school bell only during the start of the day and re-start after lunch. If they rang it at any other time, it meant Danger and the local constable would come a-runnin'!

As for shooting up the schools, yes they were. Read on...

Maybe out in Oklahoma teachers couldn't be armed.

Even when I was going to elementary school here teachers were armed. Contracts and what is done are two different things.
I'd feel confident without getting to detailed that many KY teachers are armed everyday now. They have that right, unconstitutional laws not withstanding.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Ghost, while off thread topic information and tho key points have been previously stated by this persona non grata forum member, this might clarify items for yourself and others of the august membership...

1. The first school dress code law was established in 1969 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, known as Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, involved several high school students who wore black armbands to school in a planned protest against the Vietnam War. In a far-reaching decision, the Court essentially decided that schools may limit student expression (such as enforcing dress codes) if there is a legitimate concern that such expression will be disruptive to the learning environment or violate the rights of others.

2.
Today, most states have laws that allow school boards to make dress code rules for students within their district to promote a safe, disciplined school environment, prevent interference with schoolwork and discipline, and to encourage uniformity of student dress. For instance, dress codes that prohibit clothing that is vulgar, obscene or worn in a manner that disrupts school activity are generally permitted – whereas dress codes that censor student expression because educators do not like the message are generally not permitted.

3. Not all speech is protected in a school setting.

4. Religious dress is not prohibited.

Oh, here’s a cite for those who care...https://education.findlaw.com/student-rights/school-dress-codes.html
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,265
Location
Kentucky
Ghost, while off thread topic information and tho key points have been previously stated by this persona non grata forum member, this might clarify items for yourself and others of the august membership...

1. The first school dress code law was established in 1969 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, known as Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, involved several high school students who wore black armbands to school in a planned protest against the Vietnam War. In a far-reaching decision, the Court essentially decided that schools may limit student expression (such as enforcing dress codes) if there is a legitimate concern that such expression will be disruptive to the learning environment or violate the rights of others.

2.
Today, most states have laws that allow school boards to make dress code rules for students within their district to promote a safe, disciplined school environment, prevent interference with schoolwork and discipline, and to encourage uniformity of student dress. For instance, dress codes that prohibit clothing that is vulgar, obscene or worn in a manner that disrupts school activity are generally permitted – whereas dress codes that censor student expression because educators do not like the message are generally not permitted.

3. Not all speech is protected in a school setting.

4. Religious dress is not prohibited.

Oh, here’s a cite for those who care...https://education.findlaw.com/student-rights/school-dress-codes.html

Yes sir. I never stated KY banned schools from having a dress code.

Ive stated that here, school dress codes are a very minor to nonexistent thing in most of the schools.

And that, laws violating the constitution , including the 1st and 2nd Amendments are null and void and by SCOTUS own words no court decision can give them legitimacy.

Public schools, the property of the taxpayers, have no constitutional authority to regulate free speech anymore than they have the constitutional authority to ban the teachers, staff, or any other citizens RTKABA.

That a unconstitutional law or regulation is forced on the citizenry by use or threat of use of brute force by gov paid mercenaries in no way changes the fact that law or regulation is unconstitutional.
 

JohnLott

New member
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
9
Dear Doug: I am not sure why you posted the link to the piece so that it bypasses the download count. If you don't want other academics to see what research is getting the most attention, that is your choice, but I think that it is extremely short-sighted.

 

JohnLott

New member
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
9
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.
Dear Hammer6: I suspect that you haven't actually read the research that I wrote up, and before you comment you might want to read it. The paper never says anything about others being able to carry on school grounds. Indeed, there are many states that allow parents or others with permits to carry on school grounds even though teachers can't carry. So it is often the teachers who are being discriminated against in terms of being able to carry guns. Yet, it is teachers who are at the school all day long and who will most likely be present if an attack were to occur. The current debate is over teachers carrying and that is what the piece addresses. Most people in the middle of the debate over guns care about safety and not 2A rights, and if you just make arguments that convince yourself, you are going to lose this debate.


Please read before you attack.
 

JohnLott

New member
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
9
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.
Most people in the middle of the debate over guns care about safety and not 2A rights, and if you just make arguments that convince yourself, you are going to lose this debate. One benefit of having permits is that it allows you to track how law-abiding general citizens are in carrying concealed handguns. That, in turn, allows you to protect yourself against the many false claims put out by the gun control advocates. The ideal system would be like what you have in Pennsylvania or maybe Indiana where the costs of obtaining a permit are very low (in Pennsylvania the total cost is $20 for a five-year permit).
 

JohnLott

New member
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
9
"Should schools have teachers carry guns?"
"Should teachers have Second Amendment Rights?"

There . . . I fixed it!

Our side loses because we fail to argue the REAL issue!
If you ignore the safety issue and just argue 2A points, you will lose this debate. People in the middle of this debate may value freedom, but they are often willing to trade off freedom for safety. Fortunately, from your point of view, in this case, freedom and safety appear to go together. If you only argue 2A points, you come across as not having any responses to the safety concerns raised by others and you come across as callous.

 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,265
Location
Kentucky
Most people in the middle of the debate over guns care about safety and not 2A rights, and if you just make arguments that convince yourself, you are going to lose this debate. One benefit of having permits is that it allows you to track how law-abiding general citizens are in carrying concealed handguns. That, in turn, allows you to protect yourself against the many false claims put out by the gun control advocates. The ideal system would be like what you have in Pennsylvania or maybe Indiana where the costs of obtaining a permit are very low (in Pennsylvania the total cost is $20 for a five-year permit).


Either there is a RTKABA protected by the 2A or there isn't.

Permits, required training for a person to be armed is plainly infringement.

The moderatr middle is what got us to the point of permission to be armed instead of the right to be armed.

There is no middle. Either one supports the RTKABA, protected by the 2A or one supports gov permission to be armed.

That's it and that's all.
Right. Or permission. The ideal is gov hands off the RTKABA.

Anything else is what we have been reduced to by moderate middle roaders, giving ground to get along. The Gov Permission To Keep And Bear Arms.
 

JohnLott

New member
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
9
Since freedom and safety go together on this issue, having data makes it easier for you to convince people. I have no problem with Constitutional Carry from a safety perspective, but I am telling you from a practical debating perspective on how to deal with safety issues that the data is on your side, but that the only way you will be able to gather data for some issues regarding carrying is with a permit. I would just argue to try to make the permit as close to free as possible.

Let me to it to you a different way. People are said to have a right to vote, but at the same time you have to register before you can actually vote, right? Some states also require photo ID. Personally, over a hundred countries require photo IDs to vote, and I wish that all states required the same thing. There is a reason that you have to register to vote and hopefully get an ID -- to prevent vote fraud. Do you oppose voter registration? Do you oppose ID's to vote?
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,265
Location
Kentucky
Since freedom and safety go together on this issue, having data makes it easier for you to convince people. I have no problem with Constitutional Carry from a safety perspective, but I am telling you from a practical debating perspective on how to deal with safety issues that the data is on your side, but that the only way you will be able to gather data for some issues regarding carrying is with a permit. I would just argue to try to make the permit as close to free as possible.

Let me to it to you a different way. People are said to have a right to vote, but at the same time you have to register before you can actually vote, right? Some states also require photo ID. Personally, over a hundred countries require photo IDs to vote, and I wish that all states required the same thing. There is a reason that you have to register to vote and hopefully get an ID -- to prevent vote fraud. Do you oppose voter registration? Do you oppose ID's to vote?



There is no mention. The rtkaba with a permit.

Any requirements or regulations ,the instant that any requirement is required for a right to be exercised it is no longer a right .

Rights require no permission.
 

JohnLott

New member
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
9
There is no mention. The rtkaba with a permit.

Any requirements or regulations ,the instant that any requirement is required for a right to be exercised it is no longer a right .

Rights require no permission.
If you refuse to discuss safety issues and how gun ownership makes people safer, you will lose this debate. I don't understand why you refuse to discuss how freedom and safety go together on this issue.

On the other different issue, the same would then apply to voting. Again, do you oppose registration to vote? Do you oppose photo IDs for voting? If not, please explain. Thanks.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I don’t think that Dr. Lott is saying not to argue for the Right. I hear him saying that if you only focus your arguments on the Right, you will lose the debate. Most of the people you are trying to sway either don’t believe the Right should exist or don’t believe that it exists the way that many of us do.

He brings practical wisdom to the fray. We should carefully consider his ideas.
 

CitizenJohn

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
77
Location
Clark County, WA
One benefit of having permits is that it allows you to track how law-abiding general citizens are in carrying concealed handguns.
I have no problem with Constitutional Carry from a safety perspective, but I am telling you from a practical debating perspective on how to deal with safety issues that the data is on your side, but that the only way you will be able to gather data for some issues regarding carrying is with a permit.

Could you expound on how having a permit allows tracking of "how [people] are in carrying concealed?"
Could you expound on how having a permit allows "[gathering of] data for some issues regarding carrying [concealed]?"

What are some of those "issues" you are referencing and how would that data be collected? I've been carrying for 29 years and have yet to have a contact with LE that involved my gun (except when I carried on the job as a LEO for 3 years). So, the only "data" they (the government) have on me is that I have a carry permit and the info on the application. I'm just sayin'

Thanks
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I don’t think that Dr. Lott is saying not to argue for the Right. I hear him saying that if you only focus your arguments on the Right, you will lose the debate. Most of the people you are trying to sway either don’t believe the Right should exist or don’t believe that it exists the way that many of us do.

He brings practical wisdom to the fray. We should carefully consider his ideas.
Debating liberals regarding the 2A is a debate we have lost before it starts. Liberals dismiss the safety approach out of hand because they do not agree that our 2A protection guarantees a individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

Has there been any court cases that affirmed that safety, in general, is a integral component of our 2A?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Well, I for one wish to welcome Dr. Lott to the OC forum to elucidate some of the nunances and your perspective(s).

Dr. Lott, i personally appreciate the safety [read training] aspect but struggle over who, State/Federal, delineates the training curriculum: e.g. NM’s conceal training is 16 hours, w/live fire component, and includes CPI Nonviolent crisis intervention training. Then NM citizens are given a privilege card which allows them to carry the one and only caliber they ‘qualified’ on during live fire. Oh ya those permitted citizens must take a refresher every two years!
OR
Take UT & VA’s 4-6 hour conceal carry training on safe handling w/o live fire component nor laws on deadly force.
OR
Perhaps FL’s where ya send your paperwork & money ~ ya get your permit!

I am sure you appreciate the training quandary...

The next hurdle Dr Lott,who teaches, no teaching isn’t an applicable term, so who appropriately trains the populace, Mil, LEs [shudder], or the gold standard of firearm training organization since the 1870s ~ the TRAINING COMPONENT OF THE NRA [ILA NO]?

Oh wait I know...the “i just made up a tactic-kool’ course groups? Our training is/are superior, ask them!

Again welcome to the forum and discussion(s)
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I don’t think that Dr. Lott is saying not to argue for the Right. I hear him saying that if you only focus your arguments on the Right, you will lose the debate. Most of the people you are trying to sway either don’t believe the Right should exist or don’t believe that it exists the way that many of us do.

He brings practical wisdom to the fray. We should carefully consider his ideas.

Really eye95, I am quite sure forum members can extrapolate others posting’s meaning and based of their own critical thinking, can ask their own interpretative queries for clarification verses.

BTW, eye95, who is the YOU mentioned?

Oh also, who are “that many of us do” you refer to?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
... but that the only way you will be able to gather data for some issues regarding carrying is with a permit. I would just argue to try to make the permit as close to free as possible.
I read the monograph. Is it your contention that the absence of permit holders being arrested for crimes is indicative of CCers being law abiding?
One benefit of having permits is that it allows you to track how law-abiding general citizens are in carrying concealed handguns.
What of those citizens who OC, where a permit to OC is not mandated by state statute? Are they not law abiding as well? Or, should they be required to possess a permit so as to gather data that illustrates their law abidingness.

With Missouri not requiring a permit to CC or OC it appears that no meaningful data can be gleaned from Missouri.

Let me to it to you a different way. People are said to have a right to vote, but at the same time you have to register before you can actually vote, right? Some states also require photo ID. Personally, over a hundred countries require photo IDs to vote, and I wish that all states required the same thing. There is a reason that you have to register to vote and hopefully get an ID -- to prevent vote fraud. Do you oppose voter registration? Do you oppose ID's to vote?
Are you stating that having a permit guarantees that we can exercise our 2A? As does voter registration and presenting a state ID guarantees we can vote?
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,265
Location
Kentucky
If you refuse to discuss safety issues and how gun ownership makes people safer, you will lose this debate. I don't understand why you refuse to discuss how freedom and safety go together on this issue.

On the other different issue, the same would then apply to voting. Again, do you oppose registration to vote? Do you oppose photo IDs for voting? If not, please explain. Thanks.

All due respect we already lost the RTKABA. The antis know it. Only moderate gun debaters don't know it because they never could separate a right from permission.

The "debate" the antis and moderate gun owners are involved in has nothing to do with the RTKABA. Thats been gone for decades.

The only question now is how long before moderates and antis embolden the gov to attempt confiscation.

The debate you speak of should never have occurred. The RTKABA is as old as man himself.

One does not debate over a right.
The 2A leaves no room for debate.


It really is and will be this simple.

One either supports the RTKABA and 2a as written, or one doesn't.

Permits are infringement. No gov had constitutional authority to require them. No debates change that fact.
 

JohnLott

New member
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
9
Well, I for one wish to welcome Dr. Lott to the OC forum to elucidate some of the nunances and your perspective(s).

Dr. Lott, i personally appreciate the safety [read training] aspect but struggle over who, State/Federal, delineates the training curriculum: e.g. NM’s conceal training is 16 hours, w/live fire component, and includes CPI Nonviolent crisis intervention training. Then NM citizens are given a privilege card which allows them to carry the one and only caliber they ‘qualified’ on during live fire. Oh ya those permitted citizens must take a refresher every two years!
OR
Take UT & VA’s 4-6 hour conceal carry training on safe handling w/o live fire component nor laws on deadly force.
OR
Perhaps FL’s where ya send your paperwork & money ~ ya get your permit!

Dear Solos:
If you read my research, such as in More Guns, Less Crime or if you subscribe to the CPRC's email list, you would surely know that I haven't from benefits from mandated training and that in recent work at the CPRC you would know that we show that people get training even when it isn't mandated.

Given that work, I haven't advocated mandatory training. Nor have I ever equated increased mandatory training with safety. Unlike buying any of my books, being on the email list is free.


My only disappointment here is how little people seem to know about what I have written.

Thanks.
 
Top