NRA Press Conference 10:45 AM 12/21

[johnott 5]

vladtepes I couldn't agree more.

[Luso 6]

The problem isn't putting armed people in schools. It's that lapierre specifically said he wants to put armed cops in schools, and wants to petition congress to appropriate the funds to do so.

 

I can't back a stance like that from the NRA when I'm busy screaming about all the other things the federal govt is wasting my money on, it's hypocritical.

 

Just cc with normal employees. Problem solved, no added cost, besides the training for them. The nra should offer free basic pistol courses to anyone signing up to be armed In a school. I would rather my donation money go to that, then my tax money going to some cops bloated pension and salary.

 

I'm still stunned at the video game bs. It makes it easy for the enemy to hate us. So stupid

 

 

[deadeye74 5]

Anyone else think that the teachers unions are going to have a problem with guns at their workplace?

 

The radio station 106.9 based in Philly said in their afternoon news report that Governor Christie does not like the idea and said alternatives will be looked at in NJ.

[vladtepes 1,060]

 

Just cc with normal employees. Problem solved, no added cost, besides the training for them. The nra should offer free basic pistol courses to anyone signing up to be armed In a school. I would rather my donation money go to that, then my tax money going to some cops bloated pension and salary.

 

 

I am NO expert shooter.. but I have done a lot of fast high stress shooting with friends and family that are LEO.... shooting from cover... simulating malfunctions..

 

I have to say.. with all due respect.. your statement scares me.. because MANY are of the same mindset... "free basic pistol" will show you how to hold a gun.. shoot it.. not be terrified of it... it does NOT qualify you to engage in a gun battle defending kids... it does not IMO even qualify you to defend yourself...

 

the amount of range time required to adequately defend yourself in a shooting situation is FAR more than that.. it involves functioning under stress.. understanding targets.. what is beyond them.. how YOUR ammo will effect a target.. what substances will adequately stop the round you are shooting.. creating a clean shot with the least chance of additional damage..

 

the LAST thing I want is a bunch of armed UNDER-TRAINED teachers.. engaging some shooter and accidentally shooting a kid.. that would without question be the worst..

 

I honestly like the idea of FINDING enough money in budgets to hire someone trained.. even a retired soldier or LEO...

cake hours... summers off.. I am sure it would not be a hard position to fill.. this would likely be an individual qualified for such a task..

 

if you DO want to arm someone IN the school.. thats OK also.. but it would have to be someone with the time to seriously train... you are putting a LOT of pressure on that individual..

[jrfly3006 42]

 

 

I am NO expert shooter.. but I have done a lot of fast high stress shooting with friends and family that are LEO.... shooting from cover... simulating malfunctions..

 

I have to say.. with all due respect.. your statement scares me.. because MANY are of the same mindset... "free basic pistol" will show you how to hold a gun.. shoot it.. not be terrified of it... it does NOT qualify you to engage in a gun battle defending kids... it does not IMO even qualify you to defend yourself...k

 

the amount of range time required to adequately defend yourself in a shooting situation is FAR more than that.. it involves functioning under stress.. understanding targets.. what is beyond them.. how YOUR ammo will effect a target.. what substances will adequately stop the round you are shooting.. creating a clean shot with the least chance of additional damage..

 

the LAST thing I want is a bunch of armed UNDER-TRAINED teachers.. engaging some shooter and accidentally shooting a kid.. that would without question be the worst..

 

I honestly like the idea of FINDING enough money in budgets to hire someone trained.. even a retired soldier or LEO...

cake hours... summers off.. I am sure it would not be a hard position to fill.. this would likely be an individual qualified for such a task..

 

if you DO want to arm someone IN the school.. thats OK also.. but it would have to be someone with the time to seriously train... you are putting a LOT of pressure on that individual..

Exactly..as if it isnt hard enough selling the ideas of arming someone in schools..lets give parent the following choice..1.John Q Public who took a free course or 2. Sworn trained PO..i think most parents are going with B..and they wont really care about the cost taking into mind some of the things these districts spend money on

[Luso 6]

I don't understand. You guys support people's rights to conceal carry in many states where constitutional carry requires no training, but demand a salaried officer instead of a trained principal to carry in school because a normal citizen would be too dangerous?

 

Do you guys know how often even police officers miss their targets when they fire their weapons?

 

I'm not arguing a citizen is better trained than a trained LEO. I'm just saying hiring thousands of police officers on taxpayer money isn't necessary. We cant even afford the police pensions we have now. It's mostly about deterrence, and id still rather have a trained principal carrying concealed than telling teachers to corral their kids like sheep into a corner and wait to be killed

[vladtepes 1,060]

I don't understand. You guys support people's rights to conceal carry in many states where constitutional carry requires no training, but demand a salaried officer instead of a trained principal to carry in school because a normal citizen would be too dangerous?

 

Do you guys know how often even police officers miss their targets when they fire their weapons?

 

I'm not arguing a citizen is better trained than a trained LEO. I'm just saying hiring thousands of police officers on taxpayer money isn't necessary. We cant even afford the police pensions we have now. It's mostly about deterrence, and id still rather have a trained principal carrying concealed than telling teachers to corral their kids like sheep into a corner and wait to be killed

 

I am saying YOU have every right to protect yourself with deadly force..

I am saying YOU have a right to guns.. a right to carry them...

 

but I am also saying if you choose to carry a gun.. you have an OBLIGATION to know what the hell you are doing... the guys that shoot matches have some idea of what I am eluding to... all too often you get a guy who throws a couple hundred rounds down the pipe standing static at a line.. and then CARRIES this gun... I can honestly tell you with certainty that I have shot my carry gun SO much that I could not even guess at a round count... I have no idea.. I have shot the gun from my back.. side... strong hand.. weak hand.. with empties loaded in the mag to MAKE it malfunction.... changing mags.. while someone is screaming at me what target to shoot.. unless you PUSH yourself.. and TRAIN... if you ever draw that gun its gonna have one of a couple outcomes, and some of those outcomes are not good for anyone..

 

I believe in a non prohibited persons right to own AND carry a gun.... but your rights end at you.. not at my kids..

I DO feel that an armed individual in a school is a HUGE equalizer... unless that individual doesn't know what he is doing...

 

defending yourself with a gun.. against a human being.. is not the same as standing on a line shooting a target at 15 yards..

 

first steps is not even remotely close to the type of training required to actually be proficient.. IMO..

[deadeye74 5]

 

I am NO expert shooter.. but I have done a lot of fast high stress shooting with friends and family that are LEO.... shooting from cover... simulating malfunctions..

 

I have to say.. with all due respect.. your statement scares me.. because MANY are of the same mindset... "free basic pistol" will show you how to hold a gun.. shoot it.. not be terrified of it... it does NOT qualify you to engage in a gun battle defending kids... it does not IMO even qualify you to defend yourself...

 

the amount of range time required to adequately defend yourself in a shooting situation is FAR more than that.. it involves functioning under stress.. understanding targets.. what is beyond them.. how YOUR ammo will effect a target.. what substances will adequately stop the round you are shooting.. creating a clean shot with the least chance of additional damage..

 

the LAST thing I want is a bunch of armed UNDER-TRAINED teachers.. engaging some shooter and accidentally shooting a kid.. that would without question be the worst..

 

I honestly like the idea of FINDING enough money in budgets to hire someone trained.. even a retired soldier or LEO...

cake hours... summers off.. I am sure it would not be a hard position to fill.. this would likely be an individual qualified for such a task..

 

if you DO want to arm someone IN the school.. thats OK also.. but it would have to be someone with the time to seriously train... you are putting a LOT of pressure on that individual..

 

I personally feel the option of an armed guard is better, but if the option to take someone from the office or an aide and train them is viable, it should be explored. Could be a good option for the smaller school districts in rural areas.

 

It's a double edge sword. You either take a trained vet or LEO and have to train them to deal with kids and how to communicate with them so they don't fear the guy with the gun, or you have to take a trained educator with experience dealing with kids and train them to use and properly react with a firearm.

[PM2116 0]

I agree 100% with vladtepes. Well put.

 

Luso:

It's extremely rare that in a pressure situation, even with the most extensive training, that you are going to hit every one of your targets. I have many friends, all with combat experience in Iraq & Afghanistan that will back me on that. Most of the guys I know returned to the states and became police officers. Some of them claim that their qualifications for firearms are more difficult now as police officers when compared to the military. Now, these guys have experienced stress, have been shot at multiple times, all in the middle of mortar fire, rpg's, road side bombs, & the million dollar question... Who is the enemy, what is he wearing, & do I shoot? They've been tested and have survived. There are too many factors which most of us have never experienced that go into these situations. Can a teacher do that? Maybe if he/she is a military vet. But your average every day teacher will perform at the level of a trained police officer or military veteran.

 

Now, I myself am being trained by a few ex military guys, because I'm trying to get into a police academy in Virginia. They preach 3 things to me. Pay attention at the academy, be able to run 5-8 miles per day, and shoot until my finger falls off. Firearms qualifications are one of the #1 reasons recruits flunk out of the academy.

 

Knowing that, there's no damn wait I'm going to trust anyone but a trained professional to protect my future children.

[PM2116 0]

Just to clarify one thing: I am in no way, shape, or form claiming the police are 'the best of the best' when it comes to shooting. I do know a few guys that are great when it comes to qualifications, but probably would preform about average in a situation.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Just to clarify one thing: I am in no way, shape, or form claiming the police are 'the best of the best' when it comes to shooting. I do know a few guys that are great when it comes to qualifications, but probably would preform about average in a situation.

 

it is more than even the physical gun shooting... some LEO I shoot with suck...

 

it is the mental preparedness that you MAY have to kill someone.. understanding engaging an individual that is trying to kill you..

[Luso 6]

But there seems to be two conversations here.

 

I am not arguing that your average principal taking a basic pistol class is a more proficient shooter than an LEO under a stressful circumstance.

 

. And of course it takes endless hours of practice with any weapon to become comfortable and confident. I'm not advocating putting a gun in a 22 year old 1st year teachers hands wistfully and trusting that everything would be fine.'

 

All I am saying is the argument that we should hire thousands of additional police officers on taxpayer dime whose sole purpose will be to patrol schools is a burdensome and monumental expense. We know by legal precedent those police officers are not even obligated to save anyone's life.

 

To me, the incremental benefit of trained administrators conceal carrying is enough to deter or likely control most scenarios, without having to have the taxpayers absorb an inordinate amount of new salaries and pensions. We already can't sustain the debt in NJ we owe to union mandated public pension programs, why dump thousands more on the rolls? Putting guns in the hands of an trained principal is a start . Is it the most tactical solution??? No, it's the most practical. I could argue you can't trust a police officer, they aren't good enough, lets put a navy seal in every school. Surely they are better under stressful situations than a municipal cop, no?

 

All i am saying is it seems like overkill and hypocritical. we ask govt to curb spending, and suddenly we are demanding govt agents in every single school in america, and lapierre specifically said he would lobby congress to appropriate funds for those cops. That's my issue, it's just another handout asking the govt for more stuff. We have enough we can't afford.

 

The nra had a video up of a principal in Texas who does something very similar to having employees CC, and the program has been met warmly by the faculty. No one knows who is carrying on which days and it works for their town. The reason they employed it to begin with was because the closest law enforcement was over 20 minutes away in the event of an emergency and they wanted a first line of defense. If I can find it ill post it.

[Luso 6]

If I am going to get really literal...and this is crude..this is how I look at it

 

1. the status quo..no protection in schools, a psycho can come in and kill whoever he wants at his discretion...

 

no good.

 

2. minimally expensive training for volunteer administrators, principals, or faculty who undergo the same training, criminal, and mental background checks those in most CC states go through to get a carry permit.

In an emergency, they may either freeze up and do nothing, potentially hurt someone else inadvertently, or stop the commission of a crime and save lives...

 

so far, the outcomes of 2 are WAY better than 1

 

3. hire a bunch of government officials at taxpayers expense to roam the halls of every single public school institution in the country. The same humans who are just as capable of missing a target as a normal CC citizen. Monumental additional expense to the american taxpayer.

 

 

 

Is 3 better than 2 in terms of what product you are getting? Likely...maybe..but maybe not. I just don't see it as necessary when 2 is leaps and bounds ahead of 1, and 3 is a guaranteed massive expense and burden. 2 is likely to already deter an Adam Lanza from doing something stupid, and if not, still as likely to stop them before the damage is too great.

 

Anything is better than the insanity of a "gun free school zone"

[High Exposure 5,670]

 

 

it is more than even the physical gun shooting... some LEO I shoot with suck...

 

it is the mental preparedness that you MAY have to kill someone.. understanding engaging an individual that is trying to kill you..

 

There is a problem with putting your meat eaters in the schools and off the streets. Being a guard will suck the "warrior" right out of you. You will lose your edge quickly no matter how disciplined or high speed you are. The turn over/attrition rate for these jobs will be very high.

 

The teachers won't respect them, so the students will ridicule them. The Cops will look at the assignment as a punishment and it will be a dumping ground for the problem employees, no sacks, and those on blue welfare.

 

As far as arming faculty, not everyone us cut out to meet violence. Not everyone has the mean gene and can go from teaching quadratic equations to dealing death with precision in an instant. Are they going to make small unit tactics/counter ambush training a requirement in the curriculum for a Masters in Education? Where does "Gunfighter" fit into the job description of Educator?

 

Edited for clarity

Edited December 22, 2012 by High Exposure

[Luso 6]

There is a problem with putting your meat eaters in the schools and off the streets. Being a guard will suck the "warrior" right out of you. You will lose your edge quickly no matter how disciplined or high speed you are. The turn over/attrition rate for these jobs will be very high.

 

The teachers won't respect them, so the students will ridicule them. The Cops will look at the assignment as a punishment and it will be a dumping ground for the problem employees, no sacks, and those on blue welfare.

 

As far as arming faculty, not everyone us cut out to be a gunfighter. They gonna make that a requirement in the curriculum for a Masters in Education? Where does that fit into the job description?

 

I agree with part 1. We know most schools won't experience hostile situations. A lifetime school police guard would get soft on the job real quick seeing no action.

 

As for arming the faculty, you are also right. not everyone is cut out for it. It should be selected individuals in each district who are willing and able, and can undergo the necessary checks/training/testing.

 

But like I said, ANYTHING, literally anything, is better than the status quo. I'll take anything over what we have now, whether I believe it to be ideal or not.

[Luso 6]

Vled, just understood what you were saying about "first steps" not being enough..

 

I should be clearer. I am not indicating the basic course is all someone would need for defensive situations. I would be all for these people who are given the right to carry in schools to have to undergo much more advanced tactical training. I totally agree just knowing what the difference between the frame and the action is is not enough for carrying in defense of other lives.

[High Exposure 5,670]

 

 

I agree with part 1. We know most schools won't experience hostile situations. A lifetime school police guard would get soft on the job real quick seeing no action.

 

As for arming the faculty, you are also right. not everyone is cut out for it. It should be selected individuals in each district who are willing and able, and can undergo the necessary checks/training/testing.

 

But like I said, ANYTHING, literally anything, is better than the status quo. I'll take anything over what we have now, whether I believe it to be ideal or not.

 

Ok. So, now who determines the candidates suitability to carry a firearm in the school? There needs to be a standard that must be met, as well as a well defined certification process, vetting, regular sustainment, FoF training,etc... This job will not be about shooting, it will be about fighting.

 

I can think of a lot worse things than the status quo. Chief among them is allowing anyone that sees themselves as Frank Castle made real to bring a firearm into the school. Professionals are needed.

 

The minute you become responsible for lives other than your own the stakes go up tremendously.

[Luso 6]

Those who would be willing and able, and successfully undergo a rigorous training program, criminal/mental check, etc. And it could be enough to count on one hand per school. Doesn't have to be every other employee in the building.

 

what do you think would be the appropriate solution High Exposure?

[High Exposure 5,670]

Those who would be willing and able, and successfully undergo a rigorous training program, criminal/mental check, etc. And it could be enough to count on one hand per school. Doesn't have to be every other employee in the building.

 

what do you think would be the appropriate solution High Exposure?

 

What if no one met the requirements? What if no one volunteered? Does this become part of the job description? When interviewing new hires, does a prospective employees education credentials get overlooked for someone who is less suited for teaching, but already owns a firearm? When Mr jones, who really wants to carry a firearm in school and wants the extra pay that entails, gets told he is intelligible and sues the school board, the administration, and the town who pays for it? When the 4'11" 95lb art teacher wants to apply to carry, who is going to tell her no, and explain why? What equipment is issued by the BoE? What is supplied by the employee?

 

I don't have an answer yet. I know anything we do will be a band aid fix, and like the TSA will be a facade to real safety until the next incident.

 

Allowing those unsuited for the task to carry out the mission of protecting our kids is a recipe for disaster and will play directly into the Antis hands.

[Candide 0]

Yeah cops are trained so well... They spend a minimal amount of the job training on weapons because most of the time they arent engaging in shootouts. How many cops do you guys know that have hardly even drawn their weapons in their entire careers? People think they are very highly trained but unless they are swat, chances are most people on this forum have put more lead downrange in 2 months then cops do in a year. Cops arent some mythical unicorn. They are just guys who picked a different job. An armed guard or teacher isn't the be all, end all, of security. They would be just one part of the plan. Basically to offer a visual deterent as well as a basic first line of defense. They may be enough to hold the shooter off until reinforcements arrive. You really think a guy with a pistol is going to go head to head with a rifle toting shooter? Uh no.

[MarkWVU02 47]

I bet if you asked, in almost every school in America you'd have at very least 1-3 teachers that were willing to volunteer to use their summers to train and their vacation to requalify. If police offered the training you'd have a win situation. I know there are a few teachers on here that would gladly volunteer their time to do this.

[caribstv 2]

http://gunforhire.com/classes/nj-ccw-for-nj-security-guard/

 

Training like this i assume is the type more people should have

[PeteF 1,044]

Blah, blah training blah, blah.

 

The point is simple, having NO ONE at a school who has a chance of stopping a nutjob is a recipe for disaster as proven time amd time again. Having a cop is not a great option either for reasons others have stated.

A person who is trained enough to point the dangerous end of a gun at the bad guy is a

LOT better than nothing. Hell just making a school NOT a gun free zone decreases the chances that a nutjob will choose it as his target.

There are numerous reports of scumbags realizing the error of their ways way a gun is just pointed at them, and NOT shot.

Often the threat of violence, works just as well. This is demonstrated by the facts that everytime a LEO draws his gun someone does not wind up dead or in the hospital and that guns are used over a million times a year in self defense without over a million people being shot.

 

 

[jrfly3006 42]

Faculty and staff should worry about kids learning..asking them to monitor entrances, keep eyes on interior/exterior monitors etc..only takes away on primary purpose of schools which is to instruct kids..whoever is armed should worry soley about who is coming into or around school..for my own 3 kids sake I want that to be a cop..period..not saying theyre the best shot because like everyones said here thete are some civilian shooters who are extremely hi speed..but overall I want someone I know has had a thorough background check, several month academy..and is taking active shooter refresher twice a year as reqd in NJ..

[Malsua 1,422]

Blah, blah training blah, blah.

 

The point is simple, having NO ONE at a school who has a chance of stopping a nutjob is a recipe for disaster as proven time amd time again. Having a cop is not a great option either for reasons others have stated.

A person who is trained enough to point the dangerous end of a gun at the bad guy is a

LOT better than nothing. Hell just making a school NOT a gun free zone decreases the chances that a nutjob will choose it as his target.

There are numerous reports of scumbags realizing the error of their ways way a gun is just pointed at them, and NOT shot.

Often the threat of violence, works just as well. This is demonstrated by the facts that everytime a LEO draws his gun someone does not wind up dead or in the hospital and that guns are used over a million times a year in self defense without over a million people being shot.

 

Here's an article about training...and how little it really has to do with anything.

 

------------

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/mandatory-training-for-ccw/

 

Mandatory Training for CCW

 

Posted on May 20, 2008 by correia45

There was recently a discussion on THR about a newspaper article that talked about how shocking it was that CCW training in Florida was too easy. Of course, this kicked off into the inevitable argument amongst gun folks about how we have to have mandatory training vs. people who don’t believe in mandatory training.

 

I know a little bit about this subject, and I’m against any MANDATORY training for a permit. I’m a huge fan of training, but only if you want to do it. I’m in favor of Alaska style CCW, where you don’t even need a permit, you feel like carrying a gun, carry a gun.

 

A little background. I am a CCW instructor. In fact, as far as I’m aware, I’m the busiest instructor in Utah. I average 100-150 students per month. I certified just over 1,000 people last year, and that was with taking a couple of months off. Basically, I think that about 2% of the people carrying guns in this state were signed off on by me. So I’ve got a teensy bit of experience on this subject.

 

Utah doesn’t require a shooting portion. I think that’s a good thing, and here’s why.

 

When I first started out, I did a full on basic handgun class in addition to the lecture portion that was required by the state. What I quickly discovered was the people who were going to be smart, were smart. People that were going to be stupid, were on their best behavior while I watched them, then immediately went back to being stupid when they were on their own.

 

Shooting is a skill that can be taught. People that want to learn, are going to learn. People with giant egos assume that what they know is good enough, and you can’t teach them anything anyway.

 

But more distressing was the fact that shooting accurately means very little in the grand scheme of things. Don’t get me wrong, being able to hit your target is important, but it pales in comparison to the importance of making good decisions. I can teach a monkey to shoot a piece of paper. Teaching you to react intelligently under stress is a whole lot harder.

 

The big problem? What I saw was serious lack of knowledge on the law or how violence worked. I saw this over and over again amongst people that already had their permits too, because they had gone through some cheesy instructor’s wimpy course. The minimum Utah course requires a bunch of extraneous stuff that is best learned on your own, or from your owner’s manual, but there is almost nothing in there about use of force, when you can shoot, why you should shoot, and absolutely nothing at all about tactics. There’s no info about what to do after the shooting, nada.

 

I also discovered that a bunch of so called experts knew how to punch paper on the range, but knew jack squat about how violent encounters actually unfolded. Instructors like that love big qualifiers, because they can check off of a list, and feel like they’re accomplishing something. Two shots, five yards. Check.

Plus, if anything, a basic qualifier gives you a false sense of security. I get this all the time when working with law enforcement. “I passed my shooting qual in POST! I already know how to shoot good!” Snort. They don’t realize that the qualifier they shot was an easy test, usually designed for the lowest common denominator to pass.

 

So I changed my class. If a student wants to learn to shoot better, they can come with me another time and learn to shoot. But I now spend the majority of my class time going over use of force, decision making, and the stuff that keeps you A. alive and B. out of jail.

 

As far as I know, I’m the only Utah instructor that uses a role playing session. I do it to challenge the student’s preconceived notions of how “their gunfight” is going to unfold. (usually it is some variant of them being John McClane). I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve had somebody who’s already been through CCW classes come up to me afterward and comment about how eye opening that was.

 

Super in-depth qualifiers assuage the conscience of bureaucrats, and that’s about it. The article in question points out that police have lousy hit ratios. Well, that’s because gunfights are HARD, and also, most of the cops with the lousy hit rate’s training is basically the same type of BS qualifiers that the bureaucrats want to force on CCW holders.

 

The vast majority of the time, just producing the gun solves the problem for the permit holder, or the violent encounter is so close that you can just jam the muzzle into the bad guy’s chest. So why exactly should we put some extra hoops for the permit holder to jump through, that don’t really matter, don’t really help, and just cause one more expense to getting the permit to begin with?

 

And if you’ve already got the law written so that it requires a shooting portion, what is to keep some future anti-gun bureaucrat from tweaking it so that the test is so difficult that nobody can pass it? And even if it is only as difficult as the qual for say, the Air Marshals, and you personally are a bad-ass gunslinger killer of cardboard, do you want to force that requirement on your mom or your grandma? Sorry, Mom, you don’t get to carry a gun to use at conversational distance against a rapist, because I don’t FEEL safe knowing you can’t shoot the Seal Team Six pistol qual.

 

That’s basically what this fixation on mandatory training comes down to. Feelings. We’ve got some people on our side that are no different that the anti-gunners who want to ban everything because it makes the FEEL unsafe. Well, they only want to bar admittance to their secret-club to anybody who isn’t quite as good as they are, because they FEEL that’s unsafe.

 

Okay, regardless of your feelings, show me the numbers. If mandatory training makes a huge difference in safety, how come Alaska and Vermont, with no training, are about the same as Utah with 4 hours, or states like Arizona with a mandatory (If I recall correctly) 16+ hours of training?

 

Also note, that the people who are in favor of more training and tougher tests, don’t want to set the bar so high that they can’t personally reach it. They would much rather set the bar just below what they can do, because obviously, that’s how proficient you should be. Anybody who can’t shoot as good as they can is obviously a menace to society.

 

The next time somebody tells me some nonsense like that, I’ll tell them sure, only I think you should shoot at least as good as me, and odds are that since I’m a fanatic, and I can easily outshoot you, no permit for you. On the new mandatory Correia Test, the permit holder has to be able to shoot at least Expert on an IDPA classifier, while wearing a backpack loaded with eighty pounds of cinderblocks, while teenagers pelt you with rotting fruit, and listening to Barry Manilow records… BACKWARDS! I figure that will take it down from 115,000 CCWs to where there are only about fifty or so people carrying guns in Utah. That should keep the riff-raff out. Because you know, then I would feel safe.

 

Nope, no mandatory training at all. Zip, nada. In fact, I’ve already volunteered to testify before the state legislature as a subject matter expert should the issue of Alaska/Vermont style carry make it out of committee again. I’ll take the pay cut in exchange for freedom.

[Luso 6]

This is my point, a few voluntarily armed and knowledgable people is better than nothing, and cost effective. And most situations would likely be deterred before it even escalating to a newtown situation.

 

at that point performing that kind of attack isn't a massacre, it's playing russian roulette. people will think twice

[greatgunstatenj 32]

I'm not sure why the idea of putting cops or armed security in schools is so shocking to anyone. It already exists in plenty of places. I've been out of HS for more than 10 years and we had a cop in our school at all times and it wasn't like I attended school in Compton or Camden.

 

I don't know where I fall on police vs armed teacher and quite frankly I don't think it matters and here is why. These shooters are operating under delusional fantasies fostered by video games. Reality will set in real quick when the first REAL bullet comes flying in their direction, regardless of whether it hits them. I imagine they will do one of three things, sh*t themselves, commit suicide, run and hide. Possibly a combination of those things.

[MUGENFRED 0]

Very tru. @greatgun

[voyager9 3,439]

I can see pros and cons of both arming faculty and resident police. The fact is it would be nice to have both options available and schools to choose either one or a hybrid of both depending on their individual threat assessments, budget, environment..and other factors. One does not preclude the other and the fact is either option is more effective then what was available in CT.

 

My concern with having armed police in the schools, other than the budgetary considerations is that it has to be handled in such a way to NOT make the school seem like a prison. It could be a great opportunity for the police to foster a better relationship with kids if handled well... it could also cause the kids to view the police as stormtroopers if handled incorrectly. To use an admittedly overgeneralization, Police tend to (or are perceived to) resort to more strong-arm tactics quicker (see 1A cases with filming PD as examples of perception). It could be chance to overcome that perception if they are very very careful to avoid it.

 

My concern with arming the faculty, other then the training considerations, is that while it would probably work very well for an adult intruder it would be a completely different matter if the shooter is one of their own. I don't think flipping the switch between teacher/mentor and protector would come easily... at a minimum having to draw on one of your own students would cause some pretty f'n deep emotional scars. Any training would have to cover these aspects in addition to overall marksmanship/safety..etc.

 

Either way, another facet is it could provide an opportunity to bring firearms awareness/training back into the school corriculum.

[mipafox 438]

The problem isn't putting armed people in schools. It's that lapierre specifically said he wants to put armed cops in schools, and wants to petition congress to appropriate the funds to do so.

 

I can't back a stance like that from the NRA when I'm busy screaming about all the other things the federal govt is wasting my money on, it's hypocritical.

 

Just cc with normal employees. Problem solved, no added cost, besides the training for them. The nra should offer free basic pistol courses to anyone signing up to be armed In a school. I would rather my donation money go to that, then my tax money going to some cops bloated pension and salary.

 

I'm still stunned at the video game bs. It makes it easy for the enemy to hate us. So stupid

 

 

 

This is the fight of our lives. We are going to win, or we are going to lose. Right now. Not in February, Right Now.

 

Choose a side. There are two to choose from. There are no third parties in this match. We can execute them later if they fail us.

 

If we lose, it will NEVER turn back. Ever, not just for the US, but for Humanity. EVER.

 

If we win...