techno-ag said:

---

lost my dog said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

lost my dog said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

I think as you see more states shift to Constitutional Carry (like Oklahoma just did), the idea of armed teachers will continue to catch on. Even in license to carry states there are already armed citizens all around us every day, at the supermarket, the theater, the park, etc. etc. More and more, people will question the logic of keeping them out of schools.

---

People will question that logic, until some teacher shoots a student, either by accident or because of overreaction to the kid's misbehavior. Please don't tell me it won't happen because everyone with a CCL is suddenly perfect. I admire teachers in general, but we have all known some who you wouldn't trust with a gun.

---

The problem with this argument is people are already carrying all around you, and kids. Every day. Schools aren't sacrosanct.

---

Ok, but we don't allow guns in bars. We admit that there are certain situation where people will lose judgment, and that they shouldn't have guns there.

I'm not saying schools are bars (boy, I would have had more fun in high school had that been true!), but that the belief that guns should be everywhere is tempered by judgment by most rational people.

I worry about some kid grabbing a teacher's gun. I worry about some small teacher feeling threatened by some large male student. I probably shouldn't say this, but given the rates at which minorities are disciplined in school relative to whites, this will inevitably become a racial issue.

(turn on your humor mode now, or don't read this) Think of it this way - in Texas we teach students that abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy. No education about methods of birth control. But yet for guns we say there can be no locations of abstinence. The only gun control is more guns. That's like saying to keep people from getting pregnant everyone should have more sex (insert happy comment).

---

You're right, no guns in bars, because people are consuming alcohol there and we want people carrying guns to not be drunk. It's completely apples to oranges with schools.

If you're worried about a kid grabbing a teacher's gun, you should worry about the same kid grabbing somebody's gun at the supermarket. You don't realize it but we are surrounded by armed citizens every day in public places.

Anyhow, the point is moot in Navasota. They have wisely chosen to allow teachers to carry.

---

I know it's apples to oranges for schools and bars. My point was not they were the same but that the right to carry is not absolute.

I do realize that there are a certain number of people around me all the time who are carrying. I also know when I go to NYC there is almost no one carrying. I feel equally safe either place. I guess there is simply a fundamental psychological difference between people who feel safe without a gun, and people who don't feel safe unless they have one on them.

What are your thoughts on why we should have teachers carry guns instead of having security checkpoints at school entrances?

75AG said:

---

An ADT sales guy told me one time that 90% of the deterrent factor for keeping someone from robbing your house, was the security company sign in the yard.

Maybe taking down the "gun free zone" signs and replacing with something that states "teachers and administrators are armed", would have a similar effect. Of course some properly trained administrators, faculty, and staff would have to be armed.

---

We live outside city limits and the guy that did our prewire told us not to turn on service since we're so far out but that he would give us a sign for that same reason. When our kids got old enough to leave home alone when we went out we told them to leave the dogs roaming the house and not to lock them in our room. We had two Great Danes in the house at that time and we explained that if a bad guy were to see us leave and peek in the window that he would change his mind after seeing the dogs.

The overwhelming majority of bad guys are looking for the path of least resistance. The threat of return fire, a house that might have an active alarm, a Great Dane. All present resistance to someone looking to do what they came to do without getting caught or killed.

LOYAL AG said:

---

TXAggie1976 said:

---

40 year veteran teacher..here. No guns on teachers. Period.

---

Based on what? Genuinely curious. I'm married to a 20 year teacher and she gets why it might be a good idea. What in your career makes this a non-starter for you? The basic "for" argument is that "gun free" laws make schools a shooting gallery. That's true anytime only the bad guys have guns. We allow people to arm themselves so that MAYBE they have a fighting chance if, God forbid, something terrible happens. It's not a guarantee but it greatly improves the odds. What about teachers and schools changes that equation? What don't I see?

---

"BECAUSE I SAID SO! AND THAT'S FINAL!"

LOYAL AG said:

---

Why is it an either/or? But if it has to be I raise my kids in Mayberry and making them pass through metal detectors like it's IAH tears down that image that you live in a safe community. To me it would be a beating to have to worry about that every day. Guns available to teachers in a SHTF situation are out of sight out of mind and thus not a daily reminder.

---

It's not an either/or. But there are finite resources. I don't think I've seen anywhere on this thread any statement that the ISD would pay for the pistols for teachers, which I think would be the right thing to do - if a handgun is a tool you need at work, the employer should pay for it, like dry erase markers.

There's a contradiction built into your desire to have the security measures out-of-sight, out-of-mind. People want shooters to know that a school is a hardened target. That's what will keep them away. If it's out of your sight, it's out of their sight too.

And if you're worried about school shootings enough to want teachers to have guns, you already don't live in Mayberry

Excuse the long post.

TL;DR I think frequency of training has to be addressed before allowing teachers to carry. Fix that and I am on board (unless I am missing something else).


I have been watching this thread for a while now. I am pro 2nd amendment and do not mind an armed teacher in the classroom under certain conditions. Some questions and comments I still have about armed teachers.

- I can see why a teacher would want to be armed. We view schools a place we send our kids to learn. Teachers view it as their workplace. Being able to potentially save yourself AND others can be a good reason want to carry.

- The School Marshal program states: "The sole purpose of a School Marshal is to prevent the act of murder or serious bodily injury on school premises, and act only as defined by the written regulations adopted by the School Board/Governing Body." https://www.tcole.texas.gov/content/school-marshals

I read that as, the school board determines the duty to engage, or even possibly a duty that forbids offensive engagement. Do I understand this correctly? Is the school board, the right agency to determine possible lethal force procedures?

- I am sure initial training will be great. My concern is with reoccurring training. What happens 5 or 10 years after a teacher becomes a School Marshall? What about an annual physical and eye exam? Is there a requirement to shoot and/or qualify with their firearm periodically? Is the firearm checked for serviceability and documented on a regular basis? Are there any ammunition or caliber requirements?

- This is also a problem with police around the United States. Many if not most departments have police officers qualify on their firearm 1 to 2 times per year. And there is not a requirement to practice on your own. In turn, many police officers only shoot their firearm 1 or 2 times per year. That is not good.

- I think anyone that carries a firearm in the line of duty should have to fire at least 50 rounds of duty ammunition with their service firearm on a monthly basis. This would be 50 rounds under the instruction of a qualified individual. More than just shooting, topics and drills should also cover things such as: Reloading, clearing/fixing malfunctions, scenarios, decision making and shooting with your non-dominate hand...

Additionally, all of this training should occur as part of the normally scheduled duty day (paid on the clock); no Saturdays, etc. With ammo supplied and paid for by the department or ISD. I am fine with the initial training occurring in the summer just as the initial firearms training for a police offer is the academy.

We are doing a dis-service to Police, School Marshalls, and the public by not investing 100% in their training. We focus too much on initial training and forget that frequency of training is more important.

When talking about taking a life in a possibly crowded place, full of chaos, under stress, this is not too much to ask or pay for.

Koko Chingo said:

---

Excuse the long post.

TL;DR I think frequency of training has to be addressed before allowing teachers to carry. Fix that and I am on board (unless I am missing something else).


I have been watching this thread for a while now. I am pro 2nd amendment and do not mind an armed teacher in the classroom under certain conditions. Some questions and comments I still have about armed teachers.

- I can see why a teacher would want to be armed. We view schools a place we send our kids to learn. Teachers view it as their workplace. Being able to potentially save yourself AND others can be a good reason want to carry.

- The School Marshal program states: "The sole purpose of a School Marshal is to prevent the act of murder or serious bodily injury on school premises, and act only as defined by the written regulations adopted by the School Board/Governing Body." https://www.tcole.texas.gov/content/school-marshals

I read that as, the school board determines the duty to engage, or even possibly a duty that forbids offensive engagement. Do I understand this correctly? Is the school board, the right agency to determine possible lethal force procedures?

- I am sure initial training will be great. My concern is with reoccurring training. What happens 5 or 10 years after a teacher becomes a School Marshall? What about an annual physical and eye exam? Is there a requirement to shoot and/or qualify with their firearm periodically? Is the firearm checked for serviceability and documented on a regular basis? Are there any ammunition or caliber requirements?

- This is also a problem with police around the United States. Many if not most departments have police officers qualify on their firearm 1 to 2 times per year. And there is not a requirement to practice on your own. In turn, many police officers only shoot their firearm 1 or 2 times per year. That is not good.

- I think anyone that carries a firearm in the line of duty should have to fire at least 50 rounds of duty ammunition with their service firearm on a monthly basis. This would be 50 rounds under the instruction of a qualified individual. More than just shooting, topics and drills should also cover things such as: Reloading, clearing/fixing malfunctions, scenarios, decision making and shooting with your non-dominate hand...

Additionally, all of this training should occur as part of the normally scheduled duty day (paid on the clock); no Saturdays, etc. With ammo supplied and paid for by the department or ISD. I am fine with the initial training occurring in the summer just as the initial firearms training for a police offer is the academy.

We are doing a dis-service to Police, School Marshalls, and the public by not investing 100% in their training. We focus too much on initial training and forget that frequency of training is more important.

When talking about taking a life in a possibly crowded place, full of chaos, under stress, this is not too much to ask or pay for.

---

Not that I disagree with your take here, but it is your opinion. We don't know all the details of Navasota's plan.
I actually agree with you that ongoing training, proficiency tests, etc will all make these programs much more effective.

The teachers that choose to opt-in at Navasota will have to agree with whatever terms are set forth by their district. NISD may pay for all those things, or some of them, or none of them. If a teacher is agreeable to the terms established, then more power to them.

I have seen the Navasota Guardian Plan Application. Five yes/no questions that do not disqualify a teacher with no previous firearm experience from getting into the program just for the stipend that they plan to offer

Being an existing CHL holder is not a prerequisite for the Guardian Program, but they are required to be full-time, State-certified teachers who have a contract with the district.

lost my dog said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

S

Why is it an either/or? But if it has to be I raise my kids in Mayberry and making them pass through metal detectors like it's IAH tears down that image that you live in a safe community. To me it would be a beating to have to worry about that every day. Guns available to teachers in a SHTF situation are out of sight out of mind and thus not a daily reminder.

---

It's not an either/or. But there are finite resources. I don't think I've seen anywhere on this thread any statement that the ISD would pay for the pistols for teachers, which I think would be the right thing to do - if a handgun is a tool you need at work, the employer should pay for it, like dry erase markers.

There's a contradiction built into your desire to have the security measures out-of-sight, out-of-mind. People want shooters to know that a school is a hardened target. That's what will keep them away. If it's out of your sight, it's out of their sight too.

And if you're worried about school shootings enough to want teachers to have guns, you already don't live in Mayberry

---

Parents pay for the dry erase markers, they're on the school supply list.

Koko Chingo said:

---

Excuse the long post.

TL;DR I think frequency of training has to be addressed before allowing teachers to carry. Fix that and I am on board (unless I am missing something else).


I have been watching this thread for a while now. I am pro 2nd amendment and do not mind an armed teacher in the classroom under certain conditions. Some questions and comments I still have about armed teachers.

- I can see why a teacher would want to be armed. We view schools a place we send our kids to learn. Teachers view it as their workplace. Being able to potentially save yourself AND others can be a good reason want to carry.

- The School Marshal program states: "The sole purpose of a School Marshal is to prevent the act of murder or serious bodily injury on school premises, and act only as defined by the written regulations adopted by the School Board/Governing Body." https://www.tcole.texas.gov/content/school-marshals

I read that as, the school board determines the duty to engage, or even possibly a duty that forbids offensive engagement. Do I understand this correctly? Is the school board, the right agency to determine possible lethal force procedures?

- I am sure initial training will be great. My concern is with reoccurring training. What happens 5 or 10 years after a teacher becomes a School Marshall? What about an annual physical and eye exam? Is there a requirement to shoot and/or qualify with their firearm periodically? Is the firearm checked for serviceability and documented on a regular basis? Are there any ammunition or caliber requirements?

- This is also a problem with police around the United States. Many if not most departments have police officers qualify on their firearm 1 to 2 times per year. And there is not a requirement to practice on your own. In turn, many police officers only shoot their firearm 1 or 2 times per year. That is not good.

- I think anyone that carries a firearm in the line of duty should have to fire at least 50 rounds of duty ammunition with their service firearm on a monthly basis. This would be 50 rounds under the instruction of a qualified individual. More than just shooting, topics and drills should also cover things such as: Reloading, clearing/fixing malfunctions, scenarios, decision making and shooting with your non-dominate hand...

Additionally, all of this training should occur as part of the normally scheduled duty day (paid on the clock); no Saturdays, etc. With ammo supplied and paid for by the department or ISD. I am fine with the initial training occurring in the summer just as the initial firearms training for a police offer is the academy.

We are doing a dis-service to Police, School Marshalls, and the public by not investing 100% in their training. We focus too much on initial training and forget that frequency of training is more important.

When talking about taking a life in a possibly crowded place, full of chaos, under stress, this is not too much to ask or pay for.

---

Add psychological exams and I'm on board.

rhoswen said:

---

Pssssh all is teachers would fail cuz we'd all have to be crazy to have this job.

---

Well most teachers are women and if you've ever seen the crazy hot matrix you know that all women are at least a 4 crazy so....

Good point. Polygraph too, just like DPS has to go through.

Koko Chingo said:

---

Good point. Polygraph too, just like DPS has to go through.

---

Just go ahead and give them law enforcement authority too. Then when some idiot parent stirs up a tizzy about how their snowflake child was "mistreated" they can arrest them or write a ticket.

I really think the solution is letting teachers be teachers and having more security on site. Some school districts are starting to have the infrastructure in place with their own ISD PD - just make it as robust as it needs to be.

Then teachers can train as teachers and cops can train as cops. I'd really like each to be able to train for and concentrate on their primary duties.

TxElsie said:

---

I really think the solution is letting teachers be teachers and having more security on site. Some school districts are starting to have the infrastructure in place with their own ISD PD - just make it as robust as it needs to be.

Then teachers can train as teachers and cops can train as cops. I'd really like each to be able to train for and concentrate on their primary duties.

---

I'd like that too. And, let teachers with licenses to carry do so. Best of both worlds.

I think I know more than one person that carry a gun already in all the forbidden places mentioned, except places with a 51% sign or federal buildings. If it is concealed properly, no harm, no foul.
If you have to use your weapon, neutralize the threat, kick their weapon away, reholster yours, and call 911. Describe yourself and keep your hands visible at all times when officers approach.
I'm not law enforcement. That's just my common sense talking if I'm ever in this unfortunate situation.

techno-ag said:

---

TxElsie said:

---

I really think the solution is letting teachers be teachers and having more security on site. Some school districts are starting to have the infrastructure in place with their own ISD PD - just make it as robust as it needs to be.

Then teachers can train as teachers and cops can train as cops. I'd really like each to be able to train for and concentrate on their primary duties.

---

I'd like that too. And, let teachers with licenses to carry do so. Best of both worlds.

---

So just to play devil's advocate. If a licensed teacher either forgets to secure his/her weapon, it gets stolen out of a purse or cabinet, gets it taken away from them, accidentally shoots a students or freaks out and shoots someone, who is liable? The school or the individual teacher?

Will school districts have to carry additional insurance to cover incidents such as those listed above?
If the decision is the teacher's, and he/she owns the weapon, will they have to carry additional insurance?

TxElsie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TxElsie said:

---

I really think the solution is letting teachers be teachers and having more security on site. Some school districts are starting to have the infrastructure in place with their own ISD PD - just make it as robust as it needs to be.

Then teachers can train as teachers and cops can train as cops. I'd really like each to be able to train for and concentrate on their primary duties.

---

I'd like that too. And, let teachers with licenses to carry do so. Best of both worlds.

---

So just to play devil's advocate. If a licensed teacher either forgets to secure his/her weapon, it gets stolen out of a purse or cabinet, gets it taken away from them, accidentally shoots a students or freaks out and shoots someone, who is liable? The school or the individual teacher?

Will school districts have to carry additional insurance to cover incidents such as those listed above?
If the decision is the teacher's, and he/she owns the weapon, will they have to carry additional insurance?

---

There's little need for hand wringing in my opinion. We heard all kinds of "what if?" scenarios before concealed carry passed, and few if any came to light afterwards.

TxElsie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TxElsie said:

---

I really think the solution is letting teachers be teachers and having more security on site. Some school districts are starting to have the infrastructure in place with their own ISD PD - just make it as robust as it needs to be.

Then teachers can train as teachers and cops can train as cops. I'd really like each to be able to train for and concentrate on their primary duties.

---

I'd like that too. And, let teachers with licenses to carry do so. Best of both worlds.

---

So just to play devil's advocate. If a licensed teacher either forgets to secure his/her weapon, it gets stolen out of a purse or cabinet, gets it taken away from them, accidentally shoots a students or freaks out and shoots someone, who is liable? The school or the individual teacher?

Will school districts have to carry additional insurance to cover incidents such as those listed above?
If the decision is the teacher's, and he/she owns the weapon, will they have to carry additional insurance?

---

Hmmm... Who is currently being held responsible for the resource officer's failure to act at Parkland? It does not seem the school OR the officer is.

Liability should be a 2 way street if you are being COMPENSATED to protect.

Teachers with a CHOICE should not be held responsible for not acting; but held responsible for safety and judgement.

LightningDammitt said:

---

TxElsie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TxElsie said:

---

I really think the solution is letting teachers be teachers and having more security on site. Some school districts are starting to have the infrastructure in place with their own ISD PD - just make it as robust as it needs to be.

Then teachers can train as teachers and cops can train as cops. I'd really like each to be able to train for and concentrate on their primary duties.

---

I'd like that too. And, let teachers with licenses to carry do so. Best of both worlds.

---

So just to play devil's advocate. If a licensed teacher either forgets to secure his/her weapon, it gets stolen out of a purse or cabinet, gets it taken away from them, accidentally shoots a students or freaks out and shoots someone, who is liable? The school or the individual teacher?

Will school districts have to carry additional insurance to cover incidents such as those listed above?
If the decision is the teacher's, and he/she owns the weapon, will they have to carry additional insurance?

---

Hmmm... Who is currently being held responsible for the resource officer's failure to act at Parkland? It does not seem the school OR the officer is.

Liability should be a 2 way street if you are being COMPENSATED to protect.

Teachers with a CHOICE should not be held responsible for not acting; but held responsible for safety and judgement.

---

Yup.... quoting myself, now that I have an answer to my question;

(Collecting a pension of nearly $9000 per month!):

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30682/parkland-deputy-who-failed-confront-shooter-now-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand

soso33 said:

---

I think that's a nice feel good statement, but my point is in the reality of implementation. I don't think the program will be successful. Of course, who knows, the true intent of such a program might be the general deterrent to students with bad intentions. I can see how if a student in the Navasota school district *thought* his teachers could have a gun, it would deter him/her from acting. But in a true numbers sense, dealing with an active shooter, I don't think you will have enough buy in from the teachers to make a difference in protecting a whole campus.

---

How do you define "success"? In Texas, there are about 15% of school districts that allow teachers to carry. Most post signs to that effect. To date, there has not been a single school shooting in a Texas school district that allows teachers to carry.

Looks like to success to me. What would your definition of "success" be?

TxElsie said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

TxElsie said:

---

I really think the solution is letting teachers be teachers and having more security on site. Some school districts are starting to have the infrastructure in place with their own ISD PD - just make it as robust as it needs to be.

Then teachers can train as teachers and cops can train as cops. I'd really like each to be able to train for and concentrate on their primary duties.

---

I'd like that too. And, let teachers with licenses to carry do so. Best of both worlds.

---

So just to play devil's advocate. If a licensed teacher either forgets to secure his/her weapon, it gets stolen out of a purse or cabinet, gets it taken away from them, accidentally shoots a students or freaks out and shoots someone, who is liable? The school or the individual teacher?

Will school districts have to carry additional insurance to cover incidents such as those listed above?
If the decision is the teacher's, and he/she owns the weapon, will they have to carry additional insurance?

---

Since insurance rates are based on likelihood of occurrence, they'd look at the total number of carrying teachers and the number of incidents to set the rates. In Texas alone, dozens of school districts already allow this. I am unaware of a SINGLE incident of this happening. So, IF (since we're playing the "if" game) this were to ever happen, and IF the teacher/school carried additional liability insurance, the cost would be deminimus. The fact is, a lot of people already carry personal liability insurance and the schools already carry large amounts. I doubt the premiums would go up much, if at all given the low risk of incident.

Rather than hypotheticals, let's look at facts. Since Texas began allowing teachers to carry, there hasn't been a single school shooting in ANY of the districts that allow it. Coincidence or causal, you decide.

TxElsie said:

---

I really think the solution is letting teachers be teachers and having more security on site. Some school districts are starting to have the infrastructure in place with their own ISD PD - just make it as robust as it needs to be.

Then teachers can train as teachers and cops can train as cops. I'd really like each to be able to train for and concentrate on their primary duties.

---

Your last sentence makes me curious. What do you think the primary duty of a police officer is, shoot armed gunmen? For either teachers or police their jobs require a multitude of skill sets. They have to be part enforcer, encourager, psychologist, customer service representative, etc. Police have to protect themselves. That's sad, but that's the world we live in now. Similarly, teachers are having to protect themselves. Again, it's sad, but that's the world we live in now. Just the latest symptom in the moral decay of our country.

My daughter is a teacher. She would disagree with you. She's trained to teach already. She knows that if an armed student came in to her school (she teaches in an alternative HS, at that), she'd be a sitting duck. She has no problem spending her free time preparing to protect herself and her students. Teachers in districts are not forced to undergo the training and carry, but my daughter would like to have that choice. Why are you opposed to letting my daughter have the choice to protect herself? Do you opposed the "active shooter" training teachers go through? You should, given your assertion.

This isn't about "primary duties", it's about having the complete skill set to successfully perform your duties. Sadly, having to protect themselves and their students is now a skill set they have to learn.

viejo said:

---

TxElsie said:

---

I really think the solution is letting teachers be teachers and having more security on site. Some school districts are starting to have the infrastructure in place with their own ISD PD - just make it as robust as it needs to be.

Then teachers can train as teachers and cops can train as cops. I'd really like each to be able to train for and concentrate on their primary duties.

---

Your last sentence makes me curious. What do you think the primary duty of a police officer is, shoot armed gunmen? For either teachers or police their jobs require a multitude of skill sets. They have to be part enforcer, encourager, psychologist, customer service representative, etc. Police have to protect themselves. That's sad, but that's the world we live in now. Similarly, teachers are having to protect themselves. Again, it's sad, but that's the world we live in now. Just the latest symptom in the moral decay of our country.

My daughter is a teacher. She would disagree with you. She's trained to teach already. She knows that if an armed student came in to her school (she teaches in an alternative HS, at that), she'd be a sitting duck. She has no problem spending her free time preparing to protect herself and her students. Teachers in districts are not forced to undergo the training and carry, but my daughter would like to have that choice. Why are you opposed to letting my daughter have the choice to protect herself? Do you opposed the "active shooter" training teachers go through? You should, given your assertion.

This isn't about "primary duties", it's about having the complete skill set to successfully perform your duties. Sadly, having to protect themselves and their students is now a skill set they have to learn.

---

Spot on. Since liability has been brought up why are the schools not held liable for incidents like what happened in Santa Fe this morning.

Another soft target at Santa Fe HS. Prayers for these folks. I have friends there.

North Zulch will arm their teachers.

http://www.kbtx.com/content/news/North-Zulch-ISD-looking-to-arm-teachers-to-protect-students-489768551.html

75AG said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Send prayers. The count is up to 10 now.

I couldn't get MORE behind arming teachers and actively training them. I also would encourage ANY teacher with the mindset that "it's not their job to protect kids" to quit their job.

---

I find your post condescending. I don't know of a teacher who would not protect their students

My wife is a teacher. Proficient in firearms. And she's conflicted about guns in the classroom.

---

My apologies, but it was not intended to be condescending. I should preface my post with the fact that I have had more than a few teachers say EXACTLY what I posted in reference to. You're wife does not sound like one that I am referencing. I still stand behind my comment. You can be conflicted about the gun argument and still have a desire/obligation to protect the kids.

I see your point about the post though.

soso33 said:

---

Sorry, but I'm a little uneasy with the type of person that is going to be attracted by this program and ultimately, I don't think enough educators will opt in to make a difference, campus-wide.

Let's step through it.

Quote:

---

All teachers who want to participate in the Guardian Plan must already have their concealed handgun license

---

ok, so far so good. And this might encourage teachers who don't already have their concealed carry licence to get one...

Quote:

---

and will go through extensive training, including crisis intervention and management of hostage situations.

---

Now, wait a minute. Teachers are already resource-strapped as it is. And they don't have a lot of extra time to spare. When is this training proposed to happen?

Quote:

---

Training will take place over the summer, and the Guardian Plan requirements and training will be included in the district's emergency operation procedures to note what must be done every nine weeks, every semester or every year.

---

So teachers are supposed to give up more of their summer? I don't think this will be very popular.

No mention of how many hours are included in the extensive training. I looked up similar programs and this is what I found:

Quote:

---

Sentinels receive 4 hours of defensive tactics. However, their firearms training includes the same 80 hours as a basic recruit plus:
-16 hours of precision pistol training
-4 hours of discretionary (shoot-or-don't-shoot) training
-An extra 8 hours of active shooter training
-20 hours of deadly force legal education (learning when to legally step into a situation and shoot)

It's a total of 132 hours of training.

http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/inside-the-sentinel-training-program-arming-teachers-in-polk-county

---

There's no mention of extra pay for this service the teachers are providing.

In short, the hours of training over the summer will be a deterrent to participation in the program. But furthermore, I'd have to question the true intentions of a teacher who was willing to go through all of the training and red tape just to carry a weapon in the classroom. I'm sorry, but I'd say that person is a little too enthusiastic about the opportunity and would be anxiously awaiting a situation where they could use their training.

---

Why do you care? It's not your time. I have a daughter who is a teacher, who has her concealed carry license, and she would LOVE to do whatever it took to be able to protect herself and her students at school. That worries you? What's wrong with you?

ro828 said:

---

IMHO the best protection against a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

BUT........

I taught for over twenty-five years. There are lots of administrators who are, to be polite, jerks. I can just imagine one who announces, "By golly, every teacher on this campus/in this district will be armed," and walks through the halls with a laundry basket full of guns handing them out.

By the way, I'm thinking about two administrators- one Principal, one Assistant Superintendent- I have personally known who would do exactly that.

You've seen it in a dozen movies. Someone who's terrified of guns picks one up and says, in a quavering voice, "Stop or I'll shoot," and someone strolls over and takes the gun out of their hands. Advantage: bad guy, who is now either freshly armed or has an additional gun.

---

You are basing your rationale on what you saw in a movie? A movie?????

There is no law ANYWHERE that requires teachers to be armed. There won't be "administrators walking through the halls with a laundry basket full of guns handing them out." State law dicatates who can and can't carry a gun in the classroom, and it's been in place for years. There has not been a SINGLE school shooting in a Texas school that allows teachers to be armed. It doesn't mean there won't be, but there hasn't been one.

I'm still stunned that you would cite a work of fiction as your rationale to oppose this. Makes me glad you don't teach any more.

75AG said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Send prayers. The count is up to 10 now.

I couldn't get MORE behind arming teachers and actively training them. I also would encourage ANY teacher with the mindset that "it's not their job to protect kids" to quit their job.

---

I find your post condescending. I don't know of a teacher who would not protect their students

My wife is a teacher. Proficient in firearms. And she's conflicted about guns in the classroom.

---

If she's not in a school district that allows it, there's no need to be conflicted. If she is, she's free to chose to carry or not. And, if she's uncomfortable being in a district that allows it, she's free to seek employment elsewhere. What we're talking about here is choices. Everyone has them, except teachers in most school districts (about 20% of school districts DO allow teachers to be armed if they so choose).