0
jgoose71

Utah teachers are getting firearms training

Recommended Posts

Quote

"I feel like I would take a bullet for any student in the school district," Hansen, a special education teacher in a Salt Lake City school district, told Reuters after the training session.

"If we should ever face a shooter like the one in Connecticut, I'm fully prepared to respond with my firearm," she said, adding that she planned to buy a weapon soon and take it to work.



Quote

"I genuinely felt depressed at how helpless those teachers were and those children were in Newtown," Aposhian said. "It doesn't have to be that way."



No it doesn't

Full story
http://news.yahoo.com/utah-teachers-free-gun-training-response-newtown-shooting-025210116.html
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Hansen" is taking this too lightly. Any time you have to respond with a firearm, know that your life is about to change forever. It isn't necessarily a good thing.
I'm a jumper. Even though I don't always have money for jumps, and may not ever own a rig again, I'll always be a jumper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be curious to know what topics are covered in that course. Personally I'm not opposed to the idea of teachers who volunteer to be armed, but I'd oppose making it mandatory as has (to my understanding) been proposed in some states. My daughter is in her last year of college so she can teach, and doesn't have an interest in being forced to carry in the classroom.

I do have a couple of things I wonder about, though. Here's a comment from the article that I think is a legitimate concern:
"How would I keep that gun safe?" she said. "I wouldn't carry (it) on my person while teaching, where a disgruntled student could overpower me and take it. And if I have it secured in my office, it might not be a viable form of protection."

Here is another one: during an actual incident, at some point well-armed law enforcement will enter each classroom in the school, open each closet, etc, to clear the school. From the teacher's perspective, they will see an armed person enter the room and they will have a fraction of a second to decide if it is the shooter or not. What will happen if the teacher opens fire on a law enforcement officer? What will happen if they hesitate, and the person entering the room is the actual shooter? Are teachers going to be trained in how to make such split-second decisions?

Just curious what people think of these issues.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Here is another one: during an actual incident, at some point well-armed law enforcement will enter each classroom in the school, open each closet, etc, to clear the school. From the teacher's perspective, they will see an armed person enter the room and they will have a fraction of a second to decide if it is the shooter or not. What will happen if the teacher opens fire on a law enforcement officer? What will happen if they hesitate, and the person entering the room is the actual shooter? Are teachers going to be trained in how to make such split-second decisions?

Just curious what people think of these issues.



The armed person entering the room will be wearing a police uniform, and the teacher will know not to shoot - it's the good guys. If she opens fire anyway, she'll die from return fire - that's her doing - make the correct decisions. If the person entering is the actual shooter, the teacher still has an advantage of surprise, because the shooter doesn't know where they are right away, and that gives a second or two to identify and decide. If the teacher hesitates and the shooter gets her first, then it's no different than if she was unarmed - the entire class will be at the mercy of the shooter. Better to have some chance to save the kids, then none. Teachers would be trained to immediately put down their gun when they see the police to avoid mistaken identity with the real shooter - the police will then hold fire. A real shooter wouldn't do that, or if they did, then they deserve the same hold fire so they can be apprehended - again no difference in the way things already work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The armed person entering the room will be wearing a police uniform, and the teacher will know not to shoot - it's the good guys. If she opens fire anyway, she'll die from return fire - that's her doing - make the correct decisions. If the person entering is the actual shooter, they still have an advantage of surprise, because the shooter doesn't know where they are right away, and that gives a second or two to identify and decide. If the teacher hesitates and the shooter gets her first, then it's no different than if she was unarmed - the entire class will be at the mercy of the shooter. Better to have some chance to save the kids, then none. Teachers would be trained to immediately put down their gun when they see the police to avoid mistaken identity with the real shooter - the police will then hold fire. A real shooter wouldn't do that, or if they did, then they deserve the same hold fire so they can be apprehended - again no difference in the way things already work.



Two questions:

1) what about the kids behind the teacher in your first return fire scenario?

2) What about a perpetrator wearing a (fake) police uniform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Here is another one: during an actual incident, at some point well-armed law enforcement will enter each classroom in the school, open each closet, etc, to clear the school. From the teacher's perspective, they will see an armed person enter the room and they will have a fraction of a second to decide if it is the shooter or not. What will happen if the teacher opens fire on a law enforcement officer? What will happen if they hesitate, and the person entering the room is the actual shooter? Are teachers going to be trained in how to make such split-second decisions?

Just curious what people think of these issues.



This is one of the main reasons for the whole “lockdown/fish in a barrel” procedure. When a shooting occurs, the kids and teacher are supposed to huddle in a corner. The policy is in place because the police may shoot anything that moves. It is best for the students to either play dead or be dead. Thus, they become sitting ducks.

If there are to be armed staff at schools then there must be coordination and cross-training with local law enforcement to minimize the risk of fratricide.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The armed person entering the room will be wearing a police uniform, and the teacher will know not to shoot - it's the good guys. If she opens fire anyway, she'll die from return fire - that's her doing - make the correct decisions. If the person entering is the actual shooter, they still have an advantage of surprise, because the shooter doesn't know where they are right away, and that gives a second or two to identify and decide. If the teacher hesitates and the shooter gets her first, then it's no different than if she was unarmed - the entire class will be at the mercy of the shooter. Better to have some chance to save the kids, then none. Teachers would be trained to immediately put down their gun when they see the police to avoid mistaken identity with the real shooter - the police will then hold fire. A real shooter wouldn't do that, or if they did, then they deserve the same hold fire so they can be apprehended - again no difference in the way things already work.



Two questions:
1) what about the kids behind the teacher in your first return fire scenario?
2) What about a perpetrator wearing a (fake) police uniform?



1) If the shooter wins that duel, then the kids are dead anyway. So better to try and lose, then to not try at all.
2) I haven't heard of any mass shooter wearing a fake police uniform yet. If they do, and the teacher lays down her gun, then once again, the sitution is no different from the unarmed schools we already have - the entire class is at the mercy of the shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Following the Newtown massacre, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County in Arizona, said he plans to send a volunteer armed posse to protect schools.

Arpaio said he has the “authority to mobilize private citizens and fight crime in this county.” According to AZFamily.com, “he’ll use members of his 3,000 strong posse to patrol schools in towns that fall under sole jurisdiction of the sheriff’s office.”

Admitting he doesn’t yet know whether all schools will agree to the measure, Arpaio said he’d coordinate with them. He also asserted that such a program has been effective in malls, so it can be applicable to schools as well.

“We’re not talking about placing the posse in the schools right now but in the outlying — the perimeters of the school — to detect any criminal activity,” he said.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/sheriff-joe-arpaio-deploying-armed-posse-to-protect-schools/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is one of the main reasons for the whole “lockdown/fish in a barrel” procedure. When a shooting occurs, the kids and teacher are supposed to huddle in a corner. The policy is in place because the police may shoot anything that moves. It is best for the students to either play dead or be dead. Thus, they become sitting ducks.

I thought the idea was to hide kids in cabinets/closets, or at least get them out of line of sight of any windows, and turn out lights/lock the door so the room looks to be empty. At Sandy Hook, in the second classroom Lanza entered the teacher hid all the kids but she was killed when she told Lanza the kids were in the gym; six kids in that room also were killed when they left their hiding places and tried to escape, but the rest survived. At least one teacher at Sandy Hook was able to save all the kids in her room by hiding them (and herself) in a locked bathroom. So, most of the kids were killed in the first room Lanza entered, before the teacher had time to hide them; perhaps in that case the teacher might have been able to do something had she been armed.

The point is, in several classrooms teachers were able to take action (hiding the kids) that was effective in saving their lives. The only "fish in a barrel" were the kids in the first classroom, which was entered almost immediately after Lanza entered the school.

Would the outcome have been better or worse had the teachers spent their few seconds retrieving their firearm and positioning themselves to cover the door, instead of getting the kids hidden? Who knows.

Quote

If there are to be armed staff at schools then there must be coordination and cross-training with local law enforcement to minimize the risk of fratricide.

Certainly this is true. However, how much training would be necessary? With what frequency? We're talking about a very low-frequency but extremely high adrenalin situation. Swat teams and special forces types train constantly for these situations (or so I understand), yet still mistakes are made and innocent people end up dead. We all know that in a high-stress situation people will revert to their training, and in the absence of training anything can happen. How do you train for a situation that will almost certainly never happen in the entire career of almost all teachers? Who is going to pay for that?

Also, so far no-one has commented on the much more likely problem of an out-of-control student getting hold of the gun in the classroom. Incidents of student-on-teacher violence are all too common. Will things be better if we put access to firearms in the classroom into the mix? How can firearms be secured from students, yet still be readily available in the event of an actual crisis? Is it possible to do this without having the "cure" be worse than the "disease"?

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...Also, so far no-one has commented on the much more likely problem of an out-of-control student getting hold of the gun in the classroom. Incidents of student-on-teacher violence are all too common. Will things be better if we put access to firearms in the classroom into the mix? How can firearms be secured from students, yet still be readily available in the event of an actual crisis? Is it possible to do this without having the "cure" be worse than the "disease"?

Don



Well, one way is for the teachers to keep the guns concealed (on their person). If the out-of-control student doesn't know that the teacher has a gun, then they won't know to try and grab it.

I wouldn't want the teachers who are carrying to be publicized. It makes them targets in a number of different ways.

It's not the easiest thing to do, it requires thought, planning and training. It requires careful selection of gun, holster, placement and clothing.

But it's perfectly doable. I know people who carry on a regular basis. Some have done so for years (here in Wisconsin, it wasn't legal to do so until last year). And if they weren't close enough friends that they trusted me enough to tell me, then I wouldn't know. In fact, I just recently found out that one friend has almost always had a pistol on him, for years. Because it wasn't legal to do so, he didn't tell anyone and kept it well hidden.

He isn't a paranoid "gun nut", he's a retired Marine with combat experience.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Hansen" is taking this too lightly. Any time you have to respond with a firearm, know that your life is about to change forever. It isn't necessarily a good thing.



If someone is coming at you with a firearm, your life is already changed, their is no way around it. The only question after that is "What are my options now?"

Me personally, I like the options that will most allow me to come out of the situation alive.
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'd be curious to know what topics are covered in that course. Personally I'm not opposed to the idea of teachers who volunteer to be armed, but I'd oppose making it mandatory as has (to my understanding) been proposed in some states. My daughter is in her last year of college so she can teach, and doesn't have an interest in being forced to carry in the classroom.

I do have a couple of things I wonder about, though. Here's a comment from the article that I think is a legitimate concern:
"How would I keep that gun safe?" she said. "I wouldn't carry (it) on my person while teaching, where a disgruntled student could overpower me and take it. And if I have it secured in my office, it might not be a viable form of protection."

Here is another one: during an actual incident, at some point well-armed law enforcement will enter each classroom in the school, open each closet, etc, to clear the school. From the teacher's perspective, they will see an armed person enter the room and they will have a fraction of a second to decide if it is the shooter or not. What will happen if the teacher opens fire on a law enforcement officer? What will happen if they hesitate, and the person entering the room is the actual shooter? Are teachers going to be trained in how to make such split-second decisions?

Just curious what people think of these issues.

Don



No one is forcing these teachers to carry. It's a personal choice to want to be able to better protect them selves and their students. The classes are all voluntary. Let's be honest, some of these teachers will probably just attend the class and not carry because sometimes education on a subject can be enough in it's self.

As for keeping the fire arm safe, there are lots of options, from just carrying at random (say only 20% of the teachers have a gun, but which ones?) To having a safe in the teachers lounge, or keeping it in a locked drawer with a trigger lock. I'm sure safety is a huge part of the fire arms curriculum and will be covered ad naseum....

I'm not a proponent of all teachers being well versed in the art of the quick draw, but having the ability to protect your self in 30 sec to a minute instead of waiting 15-30 min for someone to came bail you out can be the difference between life and death for a lot of people.

When you find yourself on a bi-directional shooting range, things happen really fast...:(
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"Hansen" is taking this too lightly. Any time you have to respond with a firearm, know that your life is about to change forever. It isn't necessarily a good thing.



If someone is coming at you with a firearm, your life is already changed, their is no way around it. The only question after that is "What are my options now?"

Me personally, I like the options that will most allow me to come out of the situation alive.



I agree with you, I want that option, too! But that isn't what I'm talking about.

Look at what she says -- "If we should ever face a shooter like the one in Connecticut, I'm fully prepared to respond with my firearm."

She has NO idea what it's like to look at another person through the sights.
I'm a jumper. Even though I don't always have money for jumps, and may not ever own a rig again, I'll always be a jumper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Look at what she says -- "If we should ever face a shooter like the one in Connecticut, I'm fully prepared to respond with my firearm."

She has NO idea what it's like to look at another person through the sights.



Nor does she have any idea what it's like to have another person looking through their gun sights at her and her kids. But she knows that's something to be avoided if at all possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i had a friend who proposed a real life idea that could work. require gun manufacturers to install a device on all guns that would only allow the owner to operate it. it could be done, and could allow for members of a family or several authorized persons to be programmed into it. the only thing i found wrong with this is the fact that if it were installed, it could be removed. but at least it's an idea. i hear nobody talking about the real tragedy here: preventing the situation from occurring. everyone is talking reaction into the ground, noone is saying anything proactive. and another thing missed here: it don't matter if anyone on any forum on the internet comes up with a perfectly good solution that would pay for itself and guarantee success, fucking pathetic elected representatives would not hear of it and would rather pursue their own agenda than adopt it.
http://kitswv.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me personally, I would be OK with the idea that all firearms be sold with a trigger lock. Yes, it's another damn regulation, and yes it will add to the cost of the gun but it's the only thing that might have saved the massacre...

Imagine, said nut case decides to go on a shooting spree, kills his mom, then can't find the keys....

I think he was to dumb, lazy, broke or ignorant to be able to go pick one up off the street, but that's just first impressions....
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

i had a friend who proposed a real life idea that could work. require gun manufacturers to install a device on all guns that would only allow the owner to operate it



Sounds like the Stallone movie Judge Dredd. Something along the lines of when you put your finger on the trigger it will only work if it's your DNA.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Me personally, I would be OK with the idea that all firearms be sold with a trigger lock. Yes, it's another damn regulation, and yes it will add to the cost of the gun but it's the only thing that might have saved the massacre...



They can be easily defeated with a hammer and chisel, bolt cutters, or a hack saw. Someone determined enough to commit mass murder, isn't likely to be stopped by a trigger lock.

Quote

a device on all guns that would only allow the owner to operate it



There are companies working on that, but they don't work reliably. You don't want a self-defense gun that won't fire when you need it to, because it has a dead battery, or doesn't recognize your dirty fingerprint.

And besides, there are already millions of regular guns already in circulation, and they aren't going anywhere. So no killer is going to be deterred for want of a workable gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0