Assistant Professor Charged in University Shooting

Remove all ads!

If I'm reading you corectly on this, the problem is that we don't seem to be able to qualify very well how the murders that concealed carry permit holders have committed were committed. We can't simply assume that they used guns while they were out in public (which are the two elements significant to concealed carry - guns and being armed in public).

You may be thinking of me actually ... I've maintained that all of my contact with permit holders suggests that they are not inherantly dangerous and do in fact tend to be made more measured and even-handed by the responsibility that goes with being armed in public. I believe you disagreed with this specifically when you said "Carrying a firearm does not make a person more responsible. Period."

 

It does sound like I confused the two of you -- my apologies to both.

Correct, and it really doesn't matter does it? No matter how any murders were committed it becomes an issue of how stable the person with a concealed carry permit really is. If they are not more stable on average than the average person then how can having more people with concealed weapons around children be a good thing?

I also have a rather biased opinion of the effectiveness of untrained personnel regarding emergency response. Without extensive training you simply cannot count on a person to assess a crisis situation correctly and respond appropriately. I found this to be true when I supervised a security force of trained marines -- relying on untrained teachers to provide security is folly. Generally the untrained must rely on luck.

Edit:

NOG, I'm really not sure why you continue to use the tired argument "it was good enough for me when I was a child." The point that you had guns around you when you were a child is irrevelant -- I had guns around me as well and never shot any one. Yet accidental gun firings occur all the time and people die. While the majority of people weapons will never have a serious accident it does not mean the probability of such an accident is insignificant.

Oh yes, secure holsters are good, but not a real significant hinderance to a person wanting the weapon -- they are designed to prevent the weapon from falling out, not being taken out. Many security guards and even police have had their weapons removed from a secure holster -- they had a prisoner escape during transport here in the Chicago area a few months ago by doing exactly that.

 

T2, I'm trying to make a larger point with those examples. Those cases where children are injured or killed in gun accidents typically (exclusively as far as I know, but I don't know details on all cases) result from the adult mishandling the firearm somehow, usually leaving it somewhere the kids could get it, and never teaching the kids to respect it. My upbrining was different from that, and I bring it up to show an example of how it can be done safely. I'd bet your upbringing could be used similarly.

My point remains that the danger you discribe already exists in many schools (with security guards) and isn't a problem. On top of that, a concealed weapon is even harder to get to than a security guards, because it's concealed (i.e. there's stuff in the way).

You're right that the situation isn't 100% perfect, but I'm willing to bet that the statistical risks are smaller than the risks of a shooting occuring at the school without it.

 

So how is it applicable to the real world? How is your upbringing even remotely applicable to how a teacher would handle a weapon at school? If a significant amout of weapons are 'mishandled' currently, how do you justify it is not going to happen if you arm teachers?

And just how do you know it's not a problem? How can you extrapolate that if two or ten times the number of weapons were present on a campus it would not be a problem? I don't think there is enough evidence to support that claim.

 

Simple, the mishandled weapons today are almost always associated with untrained or massively irresponsable adults. These teachers would be trained. Of coures, irresponsable adults are always a problem, but they can be weeded out through the training process, and I'm sure many are weeded out through the hiring (or complaints) process.

Because no one's moving to remove guns from security guards at schools. Or at least, not that I've heard. If they are, they're among the most extreme anti-gun nuts and don't have any data (I say this because, if there were data, it would likely have made it's way to my attention by now). While kids bringing guns to school is a problem, kids nabbing guns from security guards at school isn't.

Again, I'm not advocating arming all teachers, but rather only a select number (at least, in HS; college is a different issue entirely). So it's less ten times and more like two times. If it's not a problem with one times as many guns, it isn't likely to become one with two times as many guns.

 

Therein lies your premise -- the main statement you base all your arguments on. And it's blatantly false (the 'almost always' is the kicker here, I would agree with 'usually' as I think the majority are). Accidents happen to even the most experienced weapons handlers.

 

Yes they do, but much more rarely. This is the closest thing I could find to statistics on it, but of course it doesn't say anything about who's trained in safety procedures and who isn't.

More on point, I also found this. I can't get the whole paper, but it seems to indicate that the primary threat to children from firearms is unattended firearms. Of course the idea is that these firearms in schools would never be unattended.

For another line of reasoning, let's break down the possibilities:
1.) accidental discharge: this pretty much requires someone drawing the gun for some reason. Anyone trained in firearms that draws a gun around children without good reason is being grossly negligent.
2.) premeditated shootings: let's face it, odds are if a kid plans to shoot another kid, they'll bring their own gun rather than hope to snag one off a distracted teacher/guard.
3.) 'spur of the moment' shootings: here's where the real risk comes in. That being said, how many kids would think to run to the armed teacher, grab the gun out of their holster (hoping to get away with it) and then go back to shoot the kid/teacher/adult/whoever? If they're acting in self defense and they run to the armed teacher, they'll likely just tell the teacher. If they're acting in aggression, they'll likely grab whatever is handy (not likely to be a concealed weapon on another person) and use that.

 

What is your source for this? While that was certainly a concern, and a portion of the reason - which is based in English Common Law - we are talking about the FOUNDING of the United States, with a multitude of reasons for the right to gun ownership.

Crucis - Certainly that issue was raised by some of the Founders, particularly the anti-federlists upon seeing that the new Constitution in 1787 that allowed for a standing federal army of any size. There was concern among them that the local militia should not be smaller than the federal army. Jefferson believed that a standing federal army was the greatest threat to the freedom of citizens.

However, there were still other reasons for citizen rights:

To raise a local militia for local defense: Indians, outlaws, (which were common on the frontier).

Hunting - Not everyone had a grocery store on the frontier, so yes they did hunt to provide food for themselves.

Self-defense in disputes, which were sometimes violent.

And to control slaves, mostly in slave states.

The point is people settling a raw territory needed their guns, so there was already plenty of reasons to protect individual rights, without proving the need regarding rebellion.

As for the Constitution and Bill of Rights - You have to keep in mind that there was no professional army at the time. So, there was no federal army that could threaten anyone's freedom. In fact, the states barely paid the Continental Army during the Revolution and the army would have disbanded were it not for the strength of Washington's character, which kept the army in the field. But the Constitution's intent was to give more power to the central government and less to the states, thereby it allowed for the formation of a federal army.

What the Framers envisioned was a local militia in the various states that would be composed of a citizen army to maintain order and to fight off invasions in an emergency until the national army could be raised. The larger question scholars have wrestled with is the meaning of "A well-regulated local militia." This is quite an open question as to what is meant by "regulated."

As far as citizen rebellions, that happened a few times during the Founding and the question was heated, with those wanting to establish the Rule of Law, but others opposing, including Jefferson, making the infamous, or famous, comment: "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

However, Madison commented: "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power." Hence, the Constitution. The Framers wanted a political solution to the problems between authority and personal liberty, rather than a violent one. I think it is safe to say that a majority of the Founders believed that citizens should not take up arms against the Constitution and that is not the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Nevertheless, the 2nd Amendment gives citizens individual rights to have guns. That can't disputed. But I don't believe the Framers intended those guns to be used against the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Yes, and the issue of "gun-free zones." As a parent who actually has kids in school I think it's a poor idea to have not have them. The day we no longer have them on planes, in airports, in courtrooms and bars, is the day that these villians can subject my kids to the mercy of other kids carrying guns. My kids have the same rights as people on planes, in courtrooms and in gin mills. They are not second class citizens.

 

Wow, Chanos. That's quite a post, and probably the best summation of the issue I've seen. I do have one slight contention, though.

Given that they had just recently finished an armed revolt against their previous nation, and not entirely with militias, I can't really believe that the Founding Fathers could have possibly written and approved the 2nd Amendment without this possibility being considered. I'm quite sure they all hoped it never happened, and I definitely believe there were other concerns as well, but I do think this possibility had to cross their minds.

 

Guns are not necessary to stop armed assailants.

This guy had balls of steel.

 

I've been sick for the last couple of days, so I haven't been able to respond. Sorry for going back a few posts, but I feel to comment a bit about equating a security guard with a armed teacher. To think that the average teacher with a couple of hours of training in the proper handling of concealed firearms is the equivalent of a security guard (who are police officers in many cases), is basically flawed. The training that people with a concealed weapon receive can be measured in hours, whereas police officers routinely have to be recertified in use of their firearms. (I know police officers in three different states, one of which requires all officers to go through a quarterly training regimine, and the other two that have to do it twice yearly.) People who have concealed carry permits go through a basic training course once.

Additionally, as T2 alluded to, just because you know the basics about gun safety does not in any way translate in to how you would react when placed in an emergency situation - simply because the training you receive when you get your concealed carry permit does not cover such instances. Given these points, I'm much more comfortable with the idea that any firearm being brought to schools should be restricted to professionals.

 

I tend to agree that the likelihood of a basic concealed carry permit holder (whether they be a teacher or anything else) intervening successfully in a crisis is less than that of a professional trained in firearms use, but the fact that the two students in the Appalachian school case did so has mollified my opinion on that a bit. It may become a question of degree: is some resistance better than no resistance if the ideal resistance is unavailable?

That leads us to the question of practicality as well. I don't suppose that any school can really afford to post a guard in every classroom; instead guards more likely do things like monitor entryways, patrol parking lots, and walk the halls most of the time. Unless an incident then occurs at those places or very nearby, they likely will not function effectively as a first responder. An armed teacher in a classrooom where someone pulls a firearm and starts shooting could.

btw, highest kudos indeed to the math teacher who stopped that guy in Colorado. I'd hate to have to rely on that sort of unarmed intervention though. It worked out in this instance, but if the assailant had been armed with anything with a greater magazine capacity than a hunting rifle, the opportunity to tackle him while he reloaded may not have arisen. In cases like Columbine or Virginia Tech, for example, such intervention doesn't seem likely. The guy had great courage and resolve though, there seems to be no doubt about that. Score one for the competency of teachers.

 

I don't know... wouldn't you think that having say, one or two security guards per floor would be adequate? I mean, if you have them at the entry ways during the beginning of school, and have them in the hallways during the school day, they could respond very quickly. Unless you're envisioning a scenario where a student and a teacher go wild west with a quick draw of their pistols. The truth is, even a teacher who is carrying a concealed weapon would not prevent a student who has a concealed gun from getting off the first shot. A student who already has his gun out with plans to shoot someone - very possibly the teacher first if he thinks the teacher is armed - is going to get a shot or two off before the teacher can see the gun, get his own gun out, aim it, and fire.

The same would, of course, apply to a security guard in the classroom. They would necessarily not be able to shoot the student brandishing a weapon before they got a couple of shots off, and if they themselves were shot first (and I'd say that's likely), then there's no inherent advantage to having them in the classroom as opposed to in the hallway, seconds away from arriving. At least in that situation, they'd already have their gun out, and know they were entering a potentially hostile situation.

 

Certainly having armed guards on-site at all would be preferable to waiting for the police to arrive, being as they would be able to respond in, let's say, an average of one minute as opposed to around 5 -10 minutes depending on how close the police were. But in that one minute a lot of people can get shot. I suppose a lot of variables would have to be taken into consideration, such as the size (square-footage, acreage) of the school and the number of guards. But it seems likely that they would not be right at the location of any incidents except by happenstance. Their response time would also be limited by the swiftness of the dispatch or however else they learned of the incident, even hearing the shots themselves and going to the location.

You're quite right IMO that a guard or a teacher at the location is not likely to pre-emptively stop a threat before at least a few shots have been fired, and indeed a known armed teacher or guard in the room might be the first target. Then again they might not. (This would depend largely on the sophistication and preparation of the shooter, I would think. e.g., are they doing it with only a vague notion that they might if they get up the nerve, or did they plot it out step-by-step the week before? Is their target a single individual whom they bear a grudge against [crime of passion], or do they want to kill a lot of people and make a 'statement' [calculated murder]? Did they do their homework and investigate which teachers were armed ahead of time, or did that never even enter their minds? Etc.)

I'd much prefer the odds of lives being saved the hands of an armed teacher on-scene who does not get shot first to waiting for guards to arrive a minute later or the police to arrive 5 minutes later. The Colorado case shows just exactly how important a rapid response can be. It looks like that guy may have saved quite a few lives, even though the police were only moments away when he intervened.

 

That all depends on the layout of the school in question. In my HS, this would absolutely have worked, as it was a very sensable, planned building. In my wife's HS, it would fail miserably, as it was a very piecemeal complex. And, of course, colleges are again a different subject entirely, but then they also have the money to hire more security (i.e. campus police).

 

Just because something is legal (2nd Amendment or not) doesn't mean it is appropriate in all places. To use an analogy, alcohol is legal, but a teacher cannot bring it to work with him.

With that in mind, in a school setting, having a teacher with a gun in a holster while he teaches classes seems to me to be a really, really bad idea. I don't care how much training he has had, a couple of kids could all too easily get hold of the gun -- they are in close proximity for long periods of time, and the mind of most teachers is focussed on education, not security measures. IMHO, it would be a recipe for disaster.

As for totally going past the event horizon and requiring teachers to be armed, that's so ridiculous as to not even be funny. Most of the teachers that I know would not want to carry a gun. A goodly number would find that requirement to be against their moral or ethical principles. In many cases, teachers of academic subjects are not in good enough shape to fire anything more than an airgun (I am referring to older teachers with eyesight issues or other physical conditions). No teachers association would ever in a million years let that go into a collective agreement.

Security guards aren't worried about teaching literary analysis, Boyle's law, economic theory, chiascura, or anything else. They are focussed on maintaining order. They are also not in classrooms on a regular basis. The odds of them being flanked and having their guns stolen are much lower. If you want safer schools, get more guards. As well, . . .

1: Have more resources for kids on the margins -- counsellors, shrinks, innovative programming, and all that stuff. IMHO, if both the US and my beloved country were to take the money they are dumping uselessly into foreign wars and pump it into education, they'd see a better return on their investment.

2: On that line, implement smaller class sizes. 15-18 is ideal.

3: Stream the classes by both ability and behaviour. All the namby-pamby nonsense about learning to get along with all sorts of people is utter horsedoots. A kid who can barely spell his name has no business being in a class with people studying Shakespeare. Neither type of student is well served by this politically correct nonsense. The same goes for the mentally disabled. A student who cannot count to ten should not be in a class studying advanced algebra in the name of "inclusion" -- it's mind bogglingly stupid to think that this will do anyone any good. Students with mild disabilities become frustrated and hostile, and all sorts of antisocial behaviour can ensue, not excluding violence.

4: Judges must stop sentencing kids to school. If a teen is a violent offender, he has no business around decent people. Sending him to school and expecting the staff there to be 50% teacher and 50% security guard does no one any good. More often than not, the little thug drags students on the balancing line down into the pit. Criminals belong in jails or specialized reform schools, not wasting the time of the decent kids and draining resources from already overworked teachers.

5: Have student dress and behaviour codes with teeth. None of this hooker clothing or gang colours. Rights are great, but there's a time and place for reasonable limits, and schools are a great start. I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to have school uniforms, but clothing is a huge issue to children and teens, and setting a tone by clamping down on minor anti-social behaviour means less time spent dealing with major antisocial behaviour. Schools should be places of learning first and foremost, not places of namby-pamby self expression.

6: Support teachers rather than vilify them. It's not an easy job. People think that just because they saw a lot of teachers during their education it must be an easy job that any fool can do well. It isn't. There's a reason we certify teachers. A teacher's opinion might not be on the same level as God Almighty, but it should carry some weight. In these days of political correctness and piss-poor parenting, it means very little to the decision makers -- who don't have to deal with the aftermath of their crap decisions. Teachers do.

More later.

 

I'll play devil's advocate a bit ...

But there would be no lawful purpose for the teacher to bring alcohol to school with him, while there might be for firearms. If the teacher drank the alcohol and became intoxicated, he would be breaking the law (public intoxication or what have you). If the teacher used a firearm in self defense or to stop a killing, he would not be breaking the law. (This ignores for the moment whether simply bringing the alcohol or firearm to school is itself illegal.) So while alcohol might not be appropriate in all places, firearms might be appropriate at a school depending on the circumstances.

But the question is, would they try to take a teacher's gun? Maybe in schools where gang activity is a problem, but in suburbia USA? If they did, they'd have to be uniquely diabolical students intent on murdering the student body or something similar, because the consequences for even attempting it would be severe. IMO, anyone willing to go to those lengths would have no problem bringing their own firearms to school to commit their crimes. I don't see how the simple presence of a firearm would make any normal students suddenly 'go crazy.' If schools across the US and Canada are already populated by students like that, we shouldn't even be holding classes until that issue can be resolved, because these students should be considered actively dangerous.

Also, IMO, an armed security guard walking down a hallway filled with moving students going in all directions would be more vulnerable to being disarmed than a teacher standing ten feet in front of a bunch of seated students.

I don't think anyone has suggested a compulsory arming of teachers, have they? Also, while there may be many teachers who are feeble and out of shape, I would imagine that there are also many who are quite fit and able-bodied. The Colorado math teacher must have been.

 

Dude, all it takes is a couple of douchebags -- that's it. I talk in a small town, and even there I had kids who would have tried it -- guaranteed.

 

Since you're in the business I'll take your word for it, but to what end would they have done that? Would they have taken your gun and then gone on to murder the student body, or what? And would those same students not want to murder the student body if they couldn't get your gun?

If I put on my imagination cap , I can foresee students perhaps trying to take a feeble 70 year old teacher's sidearm in the name of general hijinx, and then realizing only later what a horrific error in judgement they made after they've spent the night in jail, been interrogated by police for 18 hours, made to cry, expelled from school, and charged with felony assault, larceny, unlawful possession of a firearm, and using a firearm in the commision of a crime. I cannot very well imagine them trying it with a strong 40 year old man who takes no crap off nobody, whether they're hijinxers or the real-deal-one-in-a-million who's ready to go down to get his revenge and take as many as he can with him only because he got ahold of the teacher's pistol.

 

Gaear, my friend, there are many teenage boys who have no freaking idea why they do the dumb crap they do. Their entire lives are "ready, fire, aim!" propositions. They don't think about consequences the way regular people do. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say that there's a fair number of adults who suffer from similar impulse control issues. And it's not just split second stuff, either. These sorts of people can formulate plans, and then when facing the music and someone asking "why would you kids even think of doing something like that?" their response is "just thought it would be fun. It's no big <snipping> deal."

Now before the defenders of teens start in, I'm not saying all teens are like that, but I taught some real thugs in my day. I would bet both of my testicles and my ding-ding itself that one of those kids would have gone for the gun and tried to shoot someone either in a fit of adolescent rage or as part of a misguided prank.