Question on the NRA - President seems to be a bit extreme

[theGinsue]

IMO this issue is about the "Gun Free Zones" mandated by the federal government. If you are a law abiding citizen, who has gone through the background check to work in a school, and then take on the responsibility to obtain a CCW permit, why should the federal government prohibit you from having your weapon with you while you are at work? Removing the federal prohibition from allowing school employees from concealed carry costs the taxpayers NOTHING! It may never prevent a crime, but it does allow adults, law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves and others in the event that something like this ever occurs again.

If you say that guns in schools are dangerous, then why has Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC been allowing armed federal agents to possess numerous automatic weapons inside the school for decades? Are the President's children more important than mine? Is the US Secret Service so much more trustworthy than the average citizen?

The best government is less government.

Be safe.

Cstone and I are of one mind here. This comment was how I wanted to reply, but Chuck said it better than I ever could. My kids (now grown) are just as important as his kids are and if firearms inside of a school are so dangerous for my kids schools, then they're too dangerous for his kids schools as well. There is no gray area on this one, it's black or it's white.

[james_bond_007]

Cstone and I are of one mind here. This comment was how I wanted to reply, but Chuck said it better than I ever could. My kids (now grown) are just as important as his kids are and if firearms inside of a school are so dangerous for my kids schools, then they're too dangerous for his kids schools as well. There is no gray area on this one, it's black or it's white.

Ginsue, I see a possible "gray" area here...and I'll ask before I being, that you try not to take my comments the wrong way. I'm not DISagreeing, but trying to point out something that may have been overlooked.

First, I am in favor of having trained armed personnel to help protect our students. I am reaching a bit, but assume* that these "guards":

• are trained in Close Combat urban situations (...I said "reaching " right ?)
• have access to Intel. during a situation (radio to other members of the team to find out what's going on around them, radio for backup, etc.)
• train as a team
• have weapons retention devices (holster locks and lanyards attaching pistol to duty belt, etc....again reaching)
• etc.

*(this means I would HOPE they have taken some of these measures...)

I would be opposed to having Barney Fifes with 1-bullet serve as a guards.

I am generally OK with teachers having CCW permits carry in schools, but am concerned that they might need additional training, beyond that to obtain a CCW.
I don't think they could operate in the same capacity as what I outlined above for the guards, without more training, equipment, and organization.
I know MANY people who have a CCW, but don't practice or train at all...so just "having" a CCW does not, in my opinion, make them the "ideal" persons to wield a firearm to protect my kids.
Then there are other CCW holders that I would not hesitate to entrust using a firearm to protect my child's life.
In short, I don't think the CCW is a sufficient minimum requirement to allow teachers to carry in schools.

My concern is as follows:
When we speak of schools, we include K-12 and colleges. I'm thinking about the high school and college students.
In more troubled/rough areas, having gangs and other organized student groups, it would be pretty easy for a group of students to gang up on a teacher and disarm the teacher...or teacher(s). This would now pose a different kind of threat to the rest of the students, rival gangs, other students and teachers, administrators, etc. It would "kind of" (again reaching) be like a prison riot situation.

In summary, the gray area is perhaps teachers, under-trained, perhaps careless about allowing access to their weapon (in a desk, in a purse, in a backpack, etc. ), could pose an internal threat, if they are overcome by a student uprising (not the K-4 students, but high school and college students). I would be more comfortable with allowing teachers to carry in schools if the teachers had to "train and pass" some additional training requirements to carry in a school. At this point they are no longer carrying just for SELF defense, but for the defense of their peers, students and administrators. They have essentially become the "guards". I believe they need the additional training as such. ALL teachers would not have to carry...just those that want to and can meet the training requirements.

Your thoughts ?

[cstone]

First, I am in favor of having trained armed personnel to help protect our students. I am reaching a bit, but assume* that these "guards":

• are trained in Close Combat urban situations (...I said "reaching " right ?)
• have access to Intel. during a situation (radio to other members of the team to find out what's going on around them, radio for backup, etc.)
• train as a team
• have weapons retention devices (holster locks and lanyards attaching pistol to duty belt, etc....again reaching)
• etc.

*(this means I would HOPE they have taken some of these measures...)
...
Your thoughts ?

Since The Ginsue and I have apparently established this psychic bond, a mind meld if I may

Most cops do not have training in CQB. They have access to radios, which may or may not transmit/receive clearly in every location they are required to work. Most of the Intel the po-po receives is either generic like the information you get from reading the newspaper or watching TV, or specific like recent criminal trends in certain locations or types of businesses. You get that at the beginning of your shift and you may get a few over the air broadcasts if anything is actually noticed and passed along. Very few in LE train in groups of more than two. Most cars are manned either in ones or twos. If multiple cars show up for something, you are assigned different areas of responsibility and rarely will you be working in groups larger than two. Tactical teams are an obvious exception and many officers are not interested in that type of work. Weapons retention is important and thumb keepers are especially important when wearing a duty gun in a duty belt, exposed. If no one sees it, they aren't likely to make a grab for it.

As for working in bad areas, those are the areas where the concealed weapon is most necessary. If a school employee necessarily displays their concealed weapon, there should be progressive discipline. First offense could be as simple as, "Don't let it happen again." If the employee has a habit of showing of the gat to the kiddies, that employee has other issues and they should be addressed through psychological counseling and progressive discipline.

I expect adults in school to have the simple decency to look after minors in their care. Most police officers never fire their gun outside of a range. Most school employees who carry concealed in a school wouldn't be any more likely to use their gun at work. I believe we do a disservice to our children and other citizens when we assume that by accepting the responsibility for their own safety and those around them, they are making society more dangerous.

Again, just mine (and The Ginsue's) opinion

Be safe.

[james_bond_007]

Since The Ginsue and I have apparently established this psychic bond, a mind meld if I may
...
Again, just mine (and The Ginsue's) opinion

Very informative....thanks (...I state that sincerely).

What concerns me is that I don't feel "just" a CCW course is sufficient training for teachers and other school staff.
Yes, 4+ hrs of CCW training meets the state requirements to get a CCW. (I don't believe live fire is even a requirement...at least it wasn't a few years ago.)
Yes, it is better to have someone available to respond immediately to a threat than no one, even with minimal training.

But I think with some organization and additional/regular training, teachers that carry could be more effective, safer, better prepared, and feel more comfortable in an additional "guard" role.

For example (and maybe not the best example, but it illustrates more privileges might be granted with more training ) Mississippi is now allowing those CCW holders that obtain additional training endorsements to carry in more areas ("courthouses, polling places, government meetings, any school, college or professional athletic event, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, any elementary or secondary school facility, any junior college, community college, college or university facility, inside the passenger terminal of any airport") than those CCW holders that have not had said endorsement training. See http://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources.php?NewsID=3972

Also, when people have infrequent social contact with each other, I would agree with "If no one sees it, they aren't likely to make a grab for it." But in a school situation, where there are stronger relationships (both positive and negative) and regular encounters, I think that it would only be a short time before the students know which teachers carry and which don't, even if the teacher is careful to keep things concealed.

Again, I support teachers being allowed to carry, but believe there should be additional and regular training requirements in addition to that required for CCW, to help make any "gray area" more black or white.

[hollohas]

Again, I support teachers being allowed to carry, but believe there should be additional and regular training requirements in addition to that required for CCW, to help make any "gray area" more black or white.

Perhaps make the program similar to what armed commercial pilots participate in? Those guys must get fairly extensive and regular training. Regular trigger time, shoot/no shoot scenarios, force on force, etc.

[RMGOdirector]

"He said the NRA has been "generally supportive" of stronger background checks.""

Brady IS the NICS check. Keene is saying he supports tighter restrictions on who can own/buy guns, via Brady.

And LaPierre announced the NRA is supporting a mental health database.

I remember 1992, when the Brady bill was THE litmus test (even for the NRA) on whether a candidate for federal office is pro-gun or anti-gun.

And now, the discussion is about how to expand Brady, not repeal it.

Dude, if you can rationalize that, YOU support new gun controls.

If it offends you that we point it out when politicians or groups/orgs support gun control, then yes, you shouldn't be an RMGO member. That's what we do.

[HBARleatherneck]

And LaPierre announced the NRA is supporting a mental health database.

this concerns me alot. sure, everyone wants to ensure that somebody who is criminally insane doesnt have access to a firearm. but, that is a pipe dream. what it would really do, is allow abuses by an allready anti gun AMA to proliferate. It would be a tremendous resource for screwing almost anyone and everyone out of firearms ownership. Fuck that.

[Bailey Guns]

"He said the NRA has been "generally supportive" of stronger background checks.""

Brady IS the NICS check. Keene is saying he supports tighter restrictions on who can own/buy guns, via Brady.

And LaPierre announced the NRA is supporting a mental health database.

I remember 1992, when the Brady bill was THE litmus test (even for the NRA) on whether a candidate for federal office is pro-gun or anti-gun.

And now, the discussion is about how to expand Brady, not repeal it.

Dude, if you can rationalize that, YOU support new gun controls.

If it offends you that we point it out when politicians or groups/orgs support gun control, then yes, you shouldn't be an RMGO member. That's what we do.

If you watched the video Keene explained in pretty simple terms what he meant by that. I'll take your advice re: disassociating myself from RMGO. You've made the decision easy. My $35 just went to NRA/ILA.

[sniper7]

Perhaps make the program similar to what armed commercial pilots participate in? Those guys must get fairly extensive and regular training. Regular trigger time, shoot/no shoot scenarios, force on force, etc.

not a bad idea, but pilots go to one location for the training and can do follow up training at several locations. they also fly for free. massive massive massive cost associated with that for teachers. only thing I would say for the teachers is local training with local LEO or NRA certified instructor types with an approved course and maybe annual or bi-annual recurrent.