My neighbor Gerald Krueger agrees with me that we should keep guns out of our classrooms:
The idea to have teachers carry guns in the classroom has got to be one of the dumbest ideas every to emanate from Washington, D.C. Does that mean we are blaming the teachers because they haven’t been carrying weapons?
Teachers are just suffocating from extra duties and other chores that take away from their teaching duties. They have enough to do just following all of the federal, state, and local mandates and laws without adding on more responsibilities. We slowly erode the teacher’s role of educating and leave less and less time for them to actually teach[Gerald Krueger, “Arming Teachers Is a Terrible Idea,” Aberdeen American News, 2018.03.12].
Teaching well requires 100% focus. Carrying a firearm requires 100% focus. One cannot effectively, responsibly, and simultaneously teach and carry a firearm. Let’s stop talking about co-opting the classroom to indoctrinate children in gun culture and get back to the primary goal of keeping guns away from our kids.
Truly this focus on schools frames the gun debate better than anything that has come before. One must choose a side: is the problem too many guns, or is the problem not enough guns?
The NRA (and their well-paid government officials) have worked so hard for so long to put as many guns on the street as possible. Now that fervor is paying the dividend that rational people expected — more death. The government has promoted that fervor; the government has blocked studying that fervor; but now even a high school kid can see the effects of that fervor.
Considering all the things that teachers do, from teaching, after school programs, overseeing extra curricular activities, obligated attendance at school functions, keeping up their own credentials to taking care of their own families they must look around sometimes and wonder what the hell is the rest of the world doing.
Teaching requires maximum concentration from teachers, especially so when students reach high school. And I know a lot of teachers. Guns also call for maximum concentration. I can’t imagine how a teacher can do both at the same time. She cannot concentrate all day on the gun on her person and teach at maximum concentration all day. He cannot concentrate on where that gun is and how he will get to it if needed, and provide maximum attention to his students.We ask so much which seems above and beyond the call of duty of our teachers. Never should we add the catastrophe of guns in the classroom to those duties.
Arming teachers is a distraction — a diversion from the FULL issue. The United States has too many and too dangerous guns on our streets. Those responsible — ALL those responsible — for this crisis ought to be held accountable for their fostering.
I’m sure that Cory (and all teachers) would have chosen the career of armed security, military, or law enforcement — instead of teaching — if they wanted to carry a gun as part of their job description. Arming teachers is not only a ridiculous idea, it flies in the face of it being a solution to stopping the armed gunman issue. Schools are for education. Creating an environment where “being in constant fear” is disgusting.
Isn’t the goal to actually stop the person from committing the slaughter in the first place? Being proactive instead of reactive? Taking away/preventing/not having access to the type of weapons that are available in this country is a better first step. Guns that can fire up to 500 rounds in under five minutes? Doesn’t that classify as a weapon of mass destruction?
“Arming teachers”…… O is absolutely correct. This is a distraction. A diversion. The NRA has employed this tactic for way too long (and we’ve let them get away with it) “Talk about everything other than guns and people will get tired of it and move onto something else”.
Sadly, we’ve had mass shootings at movie theatres, concerts, etc. I don’t see them calling for arming ticket takers, concert setter-uppers, etc. Distraction indeed. And none of these folks can ever defend the big question —- why does common sense gun safety laws work in other countries?
The fact of the matter is arming teachers is a way to kill those teachers. When the SWAT team comes in and they see a teacher waving around a weapon, that teacher will be dead.
and if the bad guy really wants to blend Donald he could go to Goodwill and buy clothes that’s match the teachers!
and Drumpf has already backed down in front of Russia/NRA and Betty DeVos proves she has no business thinking about education, let alone being Sec of Education. Her 60 Minutes interview is a disgrace. And so is she and Drumpf.
When Trump was elected we knew we would do dumb stupid stuff, arming teachers is just one of those dumb stupid ideas.
What I haven’t heard from anyone in this gun debate is what is teacher is supposed to do in an active shooter incident.
Are teachers expected to shoot it out with a gunman or are they expected to do the right thing, lead the children to safety, I doubt they would have time to do both.
Gun sales are down so the NRA has to create this new market. I wonder what kind of firearm they will prescribe for teachers?
“Carrying a firearm requires 100% focus.”
Cops do it and drive. Hunters do it and walk. Soldiers do it and march, walk, work, drive and clean up cigarette butts. It’s not a wild squirrel in a much on your hip. It’s a “tool” like a screwdriver which, if you are practiced, can be used safely.
Stupid idea OldSarg. Just a way for the gun companies to make more money. You must have stock in these companies
John Sweet, an S&W MP-9 single stack of course. Great purse gun or concealed carry.
owen, yes I do. I have stock in a myriad of companies including firearms. How do you know you don’t? Do yo own a mutual fund?
Don’t believe I do but I might own stock in a gun company.
Arming teachers is still a stupid idea
I hereby annoint OldSilly as official school protection officer for all kids in all schools. He will be shadowed on an hourly basis by his own executioner who will do his job the first time OldStoner chickens out and doesn’t do his job.
Remember OldWhatever, any remarks you make will be used against you at yer termination hearing.
Old What’shisname is the kind of guy that would charge into a school unarmed and take away a shooters AR-15. Another hero.
I doubt that an armed school staff will make much difference. Law enforcement goes through many training scenarios requiring quick recognition of a situation and how to deal with it multiple times a year. Military forces in combat units do the same.
The excitement and chaos created in an active shooter situation means that the teacher is probably facing firepower greater than the teacher’s. Well trained law enforcement does not always hit the suspect. The most recent was in San Francisco where the police attempted to take a murder suspect into custody. The suspect was in a camping trailer and fired at least two rounds at the officers. The officers returned fire with a total of 65 rounds fired in 15 seconds. Suspect was taken into custody with no injuries to the suspect or officers.
Staff members who are part of the School Sentinel program will probably be known by the students (word gets around in a school) and could make the sentinel a prime target.
This article from US Concealed Carry explains the problems with engaging a suspect in a gun battle. Note that accuracy at the range does not translate to accuracy in an active shooter situation.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/accurate-enough-evaluating-defensive-handgun-accuracy/
Actually it’s not about accuracy so much as simply shooting back. You could arm all the teachers with guns loaded with blanks but then you would have what you do now, once the rest of you ratted them all out. . . and you would.
You seem to have the answers Sarg. I have questions. Would the teachers be libel if something went wrong and a kid gets shot? Who would pay for the guns? Who would pay for the training? Who would pay for the high insurance costs-if there would be any companies that would cover guns in schools?
It’s money that could be spent on kids and teachers being thrown down the drain
owen, just as you know, there are numerous people across the Nation willing to protect our kids from the animals your folks have refused to incarcerate or institute, out of concern for the animals before our children. This is actually a tough topic for me as my wife is a public school teacher. She doesn’t want to carry but a lot of other teachers are more than willing to protect the kids. On Saturday morning I ran into several Rapid teachers at McD’s having coffee and three of the four already carry and folks just don’t know. GET THIS: Most of them are DEMOCRATS!!!! That is what most of you don’t know, is people across the state car concealed carriers in casinos, gas stations, banks, Kohl’s (dang I hate Kohl’s) and even schools.
OS said, “Carrying a firearm requires 100% focus.”
Cops do it and drive. Hunters do it and walk. Soldiers do it and march, walk, work, drive and clean up cigarette butts.”
As a former teacher and hunter I can tell you, hunting is waaaaaaay easier than teaching, requires much less concentration and focus. (BTW, I was a pretty good hunter of pheasants and deer.)
An S&W MP-9 single is not much protection against an AR15 with a big magazine. I have an idea no one has proposed yet. Arm the students with pea shooters. It would have about the same effect.
OldSarg: ” . . .from the animals your folks have refused to incarcerate or institute . . .” AND your folds have armed. Somehow gun advocated manage to leave out the guns when discussing gun violence; I rather think the guns are really important when talking gun violence. Again the NRA corporate rhetoric is to make the answer more of the products they sell and NEVER fewer.
The only people with guns in schools should be the real policeman who stands by the door in those big city places, the custodians who can focus on the guns and don’t have to teach. Not even the PE teachers should sport sidearms, because the PE teachers should be ready to go all kung fu on any invaders.
Thanks, Debbo. You catch exactly how OldSarg insults teachers by comparing their complicated and challenging professional activities to menial, mindless tasks.
Those Rapid City teachers who carry weapons in school are breaking the law and should be fined, reprimanded, and possibly fired. Their party affiliation is irrelevant. If you believe in keeping kids safe and in respecting the law, OldSarg, you should report those lawbreaking teachers to their administrators.
Cory, how on earth is it an insult to teachers for me to profess they can carry and teach? Your statement “Carrying a firearm requires 100% focus.” was silly.
Maybe I can better relate it to teaching for you: Can you write on the board while talking? How about, can you walk down an aisle while handing out paper? Can you turn the pages of a book looking for a page number whilst speaking? Are all of those questions insults? You act as if a weapon is some sort of mysterious object inhabited with an uncontrollable being. . . “Carrying a firearm requires 100% focus.” silly and you know it. Your pride won’t allow you to admit it but, you know it.
Don’t be dense, OS. You said it requires no more skill or focus to teach than it does to walk or clean up cigarette butts. Read Debbo’s comment.
Carrying a gun isn’t a trivial task. Neither is teaching. Both require our full attention to be done effectively and responsibly. My pride has nothing to do with the skills and duties involved in each of those very serious tasks.
OldGoofy nails reasons why there are so many irresponsible gun carriers acting irresponsibly with their guns. They totally ignore the wmd they carry and then the bad things happen.
I can walk and chew gum, neither activity carries the likelihood of making people dead. I can rub my belly and pat my head simultaneously, and no one is likely to die.
How many times have we read about a person getting caught at the airport with a loaded gun on person or in luggage because they forgot it was there?
How about parents that forget the have young kids in hot cars when they go to work or shopping?
Responsible, huh?
Looking back at my educational career, K-16, I can think of possibly ONE teacher/coach that I would even consider for an armed assignment. BTW, can we chip in and buy a SILENCER for Old Sarge? ;-)
This morning a Washington, D.C. area veteran security officer for a middle school accidently fired his gun in his office.
Even an armed security guard doesn’t give a 100% focus when caring a gun.
Loren,
Know we know that OldSarge can’t type and think at the same time.
Please excuse the ‘know’ typo
“Carrying a gun isn’t a trivial task.” but it is. The “use” of a weapon is different but no one is asking teachers to walk around with a charged weapon drawn and you know it. As far as a difficulty of teacher I agree, it is. I found teacher military classes easy and the rooms were filled with students wanting to learn. In a school you deal with everyone, those who want to learn and those who don’t want to be there. I do like the hours of a teacher, all summer off, holidays Thanksgiving, Easter and Christmas breaks, half time work all for full time pay. South Dakota requires 9-12 to attend 962 hrs a year. Figure between teacher prep time, grading papers and the rest, for a teacher, you have to put in 150% percent more time than the students. That would be 1,443 hours a year. The average annual income for a South Dakota teacher is a pathetic $39,580 a year! That equates to a measly $27.42 an hour. Just think, if a teacher worked full time that would only be $19.02/hr. Now, a seasoned teacher with a masters gets an average of $60,000 which would equate to $41.58. Do you make $60K/year Cory?
At least you owned your mistake Roger. I do the same since there is no ability to edit on these posts. I’m worse when I use my phone but I did it several times above.
No, I don’t know it, OS. You keep saying that, but it doesn’t make your statement any less false.
Carrying a gun is the opposite of a trivial task. Carrying a weapon capable of killing a person instantly, with minimal effort, is a grave responsibility requiring constant attention.
“a grave responsibility requiring constant attention” Stop being silly and over playing your defense of going defenseless. Every one of us know kids who have carried squirrel guns and BB guns since the age 10 and now, “all of a sudden” you want everyone to shake in fear of someone who is trained in weapons safety, practiced and willing to be available to protect our kids just because you personally think carrying a weapon is too monumental for a mere teacher to be able to handle. It just don’t fly cowboy. . . If a high school teacher can handle 20 different, hormone filled, chaotic young men and women in each class for 6 classes day and not end up on the floor in convulsions they are a prime candidate to have the self-discipline to carry a weapon. Give your brethren some credit.
Sounds like a solid plan, mike.
No, OS. Let’s pare the issue down to its essentials, without distraction:
Carrying a gun means carrying a device that can end multiple lives immediately. Carrying a gun declares that the carrier is prepared to use deadly force. Carrying a gun imposes an obligation on the carrier to be on constant alert. The carrier must be constantly aware of the gun’s position and the proximity of others to that gun. The carrier must constantly scan for threats and gauge whether any of those threats require using deadly force. No amount of training excuses paying anything less than complete attention to one’s tactical situation and any risk that could lead to the discharge or loss of that weapon. I expect a veteran police officer to exercise this complete level of attention; any more casual approach to carrying a firearm is irresponsible and increases the risk of loss and discharge of the firearm.
Carrying a gun is serious. Teaching is serious. Both are so serious that one cannot do both simultaneously, any more than the best-trained musical doctor can conduct an orchestra and direct open-heart surgery simultaneously. To say so insults neither conductors nor surgeons; it only acknowledge’s the seriousness of their skills and duties.
Get over yourself Cory. No one will die on the table if you miss propagating constructivist math to the students. I agree that teaching is difficult but it is not brain surgery nor is it war fighting. Both of those involve constant life and death decisions. You worry about tardies, skipping and sleeping. . . Adding the responsibility of a weapon to protect the kids you profess to love would only improve you. Could you imagine your verbose if you had to face an actual shooter and lived after having fought others rights to protect kids. . .
‘OldAarg’ – I have tried 3 times to interpret the final statement (question?) in your post. Please take another shot at it. Thx.
Ah, so, now OldSarg is back to minimizing the skill needed to teach. Old Sarg has obviously never tried to teach well.
Teaching really is brain surgery… without touching the brain. It takes a lot of concentration, so much that we can’t sacrifice any to promote OS’s gun culture in our classrooms.
Even if I were going to promote gun culture, I wouldn’t do it by walking around with a gun on me and not thinking about it. I would demonstrate constant attention to my firearm and my tactical situation. Modeling anything less would set a bad example for the youth.
OS says — “Actually it’s not about accuracy so much as simply shooting back.”
You really need to read statutes/laws that deal with “Reckless Endangerment” — “Reckless Homicide” — “Criminally Negligent Homicide” — Etc. You are not only wrong about that statement, but you are ignorant, reckless, and dangerous with comments like that. Your overall “take” on this issue is ignorant and reckless.
Yee haw, let’s have a shooting range with bullets going everywhere. Yeah, that sounds like a free society.
” I would demonstrate constant attention to my firearm and my tactical situation” gee, such a hero. . . I’m having visions of you sneaking around the hallways peeking around corners. . .
Dana, do you know what they train teachers and children to do now to defend themselves from an active shooter? 1) Hide in place (sitting duck, the shooter knows they are all hiding witht he lights off) 2) Throw anything they have at them and attack in mass. 3) Get OUT! This is the only one that makes any since if you are unarmed. How well do you think those tactics will work against a gun?
I don’t know if arming teachers is the right answer but I do know the liaison officer hid inside behind some steps,. The local police hid outside the school and didn’t go in to help. I know the police received over 40 calls on that mental case but still the animal roamed the streets. I know the perp threatened other kids at school with knives. I know the FBI was warned. So who is defending the students and teachers? I would say, that if I were a teacher I would see the students like one see’s their own kids and would love them and want to do anything I could to defend them especially knowing how the organizations charged with protecting all of us failed.
Here’s the one that really scares me: Special Needs kids. Who will protect them? Who will silence them when they are hiding? Who will get an invalid out of the building? I shudder to think of a Special Ed teacher who truly loves her kids making that decision on whether to abandon one child to save two others. At least with a weapon she could hold tight and offer some resistance.
I think people like Cory, or my wife, that choose teaching as their career path, and discover it is a true passion they love, should be able to teach in an environment where they are safe and can concentrate on the children and the lessons but that is not the world we live in today. It is all very sad. A month ago they were teachers just to hide in place with the lights off. Now they have Alice training where they give them the above options. No, my wife wouldn’t carry a weapon and Cory rants against it but, judging from the hours and hours they spend just grading papers and trying to develop the lesson plans and schedules that enthrall the young minds, I can’t imagine they wouldn’t do everything they can to save those young lives. I’m afraid that if it does every happen to Cory or my wife we would find them dead in the classroom having pushed the last of their kids through the windows to safety. Still my wife would not carry a weapon. Cory should carry. He has the dedication to keep this silly site going he would have the dedication to undertaking the needed training. I would trust him. Then at least we would have one because now they have no one.
OS brings up the mental state of the Florida shooter, saying “the police received over 40 calls on that mental case.” That suggests OS thinks the shooter was mentally ill, which in turn means he should not be executed or imprisoned. So is OS actually advocating the shooter should only be institutionalized until his mental state improves?
Yes. It would have been preferable if he had had treatment that was effective before the incident or even to have been institutionalized prior to the event. What good would it do to stick him in a jail? Who does that help? The best result would have been if the police had done their job of protecting the kids even if it meant shooting him on the spot, which they didn’t do but, you don’t care. You just want to figure a way of jumping on the lemming train. . .
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article205298629.html?google_editors_picks=true
Even after years of training stopping an active shooter is hard say experts.
OldSnorkle advocates cops shooting unarmed, therefore not dangerous, suspect?
The shooter doffed his gear and walked out of school with other students and drove away. At what point did the police have him dead to rights with a gun in his mitts?
With enough firepower, the cops could have shot all the kids in the hopes of tagging the shooter. Is that okay OldSnorkle?
Does the County Sheriff not already have the authority of posse comitatus?
Can we just ask the Sheriff to determine which, if any, teachers to arm, and provide the Sheriff’s office some additional funding to ensure their proper training and credentialing?
Depending on the circumstances and geography, and local law enforcement response times, might it make sense for the sheriff to have a select few trusted individuals in and around a school trained to respond and assist the sheriff, and if appropriate, deputized in emergency circumstances?
While I admire most teachers, I know of a couple in my experience that I would hesitate to arm — and I’m pretty sure the Sheriff knew who they were.
That’s essentially what the school gunslinger bill does… although you raise an interesting point, Korey: since statute already exempts law enforcement from the school gun-free-zone law, a teacher deputized by the sheriff would be able to carry a gun on campus without the school board’s authorization of the gunslinger program. The school sentinel chapter (SDCL 13-64 allows school boards to authorize gunslingers who are not deputies, but they still have to get the permission of the sheriff or police chief, whichever has primary jurisdiction over the school premises.
I’m guessing it doesn’t matter what the sheriff sez, there is still this minor obstacle- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/schools-seeking-to-arm-employees-hit-hurdle-on-insurance.html
Cory,
Thanks for the information and clarification about the School Sentinel Training Program.
How many South Dakota schools now have School Sentinels who have successfully completed that program and are now serving that role in their schools? Tri-Valley and who else? Two schools does not provide a large basis to determine if the program is successful and effective. What are the preliminary assessments and conclusions?
As noted, outside of incorporated areas, per SDCL 7-12-1, the county sheriff has the responsibility to keep and preserve the peace within the county. “The sheriff may call to aid any person or power of the county as the sheriff deems necessary.”
As I write this, my television news is filled with the breaking story of a school shooting in Great Mills High School, Saint Mary’s County, Maryland. Preliminary reports are that three people were taken to area hospitals, the active shooting scenario is “no longer active”, and that the County Sheriff’s School Resource Officer (SRO) at the school was instrumental in “resolving the threat.”
I concur with most arguments that a blanket arming of teachers policy is problematic, as is a waiver of school gun-free zone laws for additional persons beyond the current law enforcement personnel.
Mike, good point about liability insurance concerns. The use of deadly force in chaotic situations is challenging, and carries increased risk of harm to both innocents and responding peace keepers.
Insurance liability was keeping schools away from the program. I’m not sure what deal Tri-Valley and Northwestern got, if any, to keep their insurance affordable.
I’m glad we agree that blanket arming of teachers is a bad approach. I’m still unable to conceive of arming any teachers as a good approach. Carrying a gun and teaching both require too much attention to be done simultaneously. And carrying a gun sends a message that contradicts the basic mission of teachers to convey culture and civilization. A gun in my hand or at my side says that all the words I’m saying are just words and that in the end, only might makes right. Guns and the threat of force contradict pretty much every learning objective I pursue in the classroom.
Those two schools are the only two in SD involved. As far as we know, neither school has had a “sentinel” actually use his or her gun.
Those two schools are the only two in SD involved. As far as we know, neither school has had a “sentinel” actually use his or her gun.
You just made ammosexuals next part of the argument for them. Having sentinels is a deterrent, whether true or not.