Should teachers be allowed to pack a gun?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Brad Knickerbocker

In court documents, she's known as "Jane Doe." Innocuous enough, but the woman behind that pseudonym pushes one of the nation's hottest political buttons: guns and school safety.

What Ms. Doe wants to do is take her Glock 9-mm pistol to the high school in Medford, Ore., where she teaches.

She's licensed to carry a concealed weapon and she has what many supporters say is a legitimate reason for being armed: a restraining order against her ex-husband based on threats he's allegedly made against her and her children.

But district policy prohibits anyone except a law-enforcement officer from bringing a weapon onto campus. When word got out that she had a concealed-carry permit, administrators reminded her of that policy. There's the political rub: According to state law, "any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition, is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly."

Backed by gun-rights groups, Doe intends to challenge the school district in state court this week. Meanwhile throughout the country, lawmakers are filing bills that would make it legal for adult school employees to carry firearms, in some cases providing special weapons safety training for those who want to be part of their school's security force in addition to their classroom teaching duties.

Gun-rights groups and school boards around the country are paying close attention to the Oregon case.

"There's a specific state statute that prohibits local governments, including school districts, from passing laws or policies prohibiting people from owning or possessing firearms," says James Leuenberger, the Portland, Ore., lawyer representing the teacher.

"Jane Doe," who agreed to be interviewed by phone on condition of anonymity, says she does not want to be viewed as an "Annie Oakley." Trying to extricate herself from an abusive relationship led her to buy her first gun just a few years ago, she says. Prior to that she had not been an activist in defense of the US Constitution's Second Amendment provision regarding "the right to keep and bear arms."

But as a veteran teacher, she has come to believe strongly that having responsible armed adults on campus could have prevented tragedies such as those at Columbine High School in Colorado, Thurston High School in Oregon, and Virginia Tech University last April.

"I have no doubt at all that any time a criminal has gone into a school intending to commit violence they did so knowing nobody was going to be able to stop them," she says. "We've seen what happens when teachers do nothing or can do nothing, and that's not acceptable to me."

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 37 states have laws specifically banning guns at schools. In general, administrators, teachers' organizations, and law-enforcement agencies favor such laws. In the confusion of a school shooting, police officials have said, adding guns to the situation just makes the predicament more dangerous.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070918/ts_cs...I6KXqFcwuyOe8UF

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

no. need security? hire security guards.

Daniel

:energetic:

[mawilson 2,133]

Yes, definitely!

no. need security? hire security guards.

Daniel

:energetic:

Remember Hui Cheng Cho or whatever his name was? Security guards sure helped a lot.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes, definitely!

no. need security? hire security guards.

Daniel

:energetic:

Remember Hui Cheng Cho or whatever his name was? Security guards sure helped a lot.

I would think it would be huge liability problem. Why not take non-lethal security measures that would prevent a mass shooting? Having a gun carrying teacher in one classroom would only address a specific threat while potentially causing chaos if several teachers in different classrooms were all carrying a gun and heard shooting in another part of the school. That would be a security nightmare that no police officer would want jump into.

[Peikko 1,575]

Simple answer, no.

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually, reading it more carefully I am confused. Is she suing in order to be able to carry because of the 'specific threat' posed by her ex or the more general 'having people carry in the classrooms will prevent school massacres'?

It starts out seeming to persue the former and ends persuing the latter. In a way, it doesn't make a whole bunch of difference to my answer, but still...

[Jenn! 918]

Guns have no place in classrooms.

[Jaseball 0]

I'm of the belief that gun laws only restrict law abiding citizens. If someone is trained, has been screened, and knows how to use a firearm I'm all for letting as many people carry concealed as possible.

Why? Because then nobody knows if that young college student, that 60 year old grandma, that guy in a wheelchair, or that soccer mom is packing heat. Not knowing who is armed and carrying is 100x more effective as a deterrent than more gun laws.

Criminals will carry and use guns regardless of the law or the punishments.

Imagine all those massacres where if a few people were armed and trained could have shot back. These mass murder pussies count on the fact that there will be unarmed people cowering in fear as the psycho walks around laughing and gunning down people hiding in closets in under desks.

Just one law abiding person with a .40 or other hand gun would have wiped that smile off their faces and sent them to hell or at least it would have evened the odds just a little bit.

[mawilson 2,133]

I would think it would be huge liability problem. Why not take non-lethal security measures that would prevent a mass shooting? Having a gun carrying teacher in one classroom would only address a specific threat while potentially causing chaos if several teachers in different classrooms were all carrying a gun and heard shooting in another part of the school. That would be a security nightmare that no police officer would want jump into.

What security nightmare? Teachers shooting each other? Teachers shooting kids?

I don't get it.

I'm of the belief that gun laws only restrict law abiding citizens. If someone is trained, has been screened, and knows how to use a firearm I'm all for letting as many people carry concealed as possible.

Why? Because then nobody knows if that young college student, that 60 year old grandma, that guy in a wheelchair, or that soccer mom is packing heat. Not knowing who is armed and carrying is 100x more effective as a deterrent than more gun laws.

Criminals will carry and use guns regardless of the law or the punishments.

Imagine all those massacres where if a few people were armed and trained could have shot back. These mass murder pussies count on the fact that there will be unarmed people cowering in fear as the psycho walks around laughing and gunning down people hiding in closets in under desks.

Just one law abiding person with a .40 or other hand gun would have wiped that smile off their faces and sent them to hell or at least it would have evened the odds just a little bit.

[Peikko 1,575]

Geez, bring back the wild west...excellent plan.

I never thought there were so many anarchists around.

Mass murderer psycho's don't give a flying ###### who's around, or how much 'heat' is being packed, they'll still do what they want to do. Maybe not with a gun, but some other way. You can't solve it like that, it's just...oh well, no point starting...

[mawilson 2,133]

Mass murderer psycho's don't give a flying ###### who's around, or how much 'heat' is being packed, they'll still do what they want to do. Maybe not with a gun, but some other way. You can't solve it like that, it's just...oh well, no point starting...

How do you solve it, exactly? The only way to stop a mass murderer is to shoot him dead.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Mass murderer psycho's don't give a flying ###### who's around, or how much 'heat' is being packed, they'll still do what they want to do. Maybe not with a gun, but some other way. You can't solve it like that, it's just...oh well, no point starting...

How do you solve it, exactly? The only way to stop a mass murderer is to shoot him dead.

arm all students with guns whle yer at it. psycho is dead after his first victim.

right?

Daniel

:energetic:

[russ 1]

Simple answer, no.

Yes, only if you permit students with CCW permits to carry too.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I would think it would be huge liability problem. Why not take non-lethal security measures that would prevent a mass shooting? Having a gun carrying teacher in one classroom would only address a specific threat while potentially causing chaos if several teachers in different classrooms were all carrying a gun and heard shooting in another part of the school. That would be a security nightmare that no police officer would want jump into.

What security nightmare? Teachers shooting each other? Teachers shooting kids?

I don't get it.

I'm of the belief that gun laws only restrict law abiding citizens. If someone is trained, has been screened, and knows how to use a firearm I'm all for letting as many people carry concealed as possible.

Why? Because then nobody knows if that young college student, that 60 year old grandma, that guy in a wheelchair, or that soccer mom is packing heat. Not knowing who is armed and carrying is 100x more effective as a deterrent than more gun laws.

Criminals will carry and use guns regardless of the law or the punishments.

Imagine all those massacres where if a few people were armed and trained could have shot back. These mass murder pussies count on the fact that there will be unarmed people cowering in fear as the psycho walks around laughing and gunning down people hiding in closets in under desks.

Just one law abiding person with a .40 or other hand gun would have wiped that smile off their faces and sent them to hell or at least it would have evened the odds just a little bit.

Imagine a 911 call coming from someone at school where all they hear are shots fired on campus. The police have nothing else to go on, but must respond. Meanwile, there are several teachers with guns in their classrooms, stopping class after hearing the shots fired outside - they too know nothing more of what is transpiring. How do you suppose the police and each teacher knows who fired the shots if they were all outside looking for the culprit in hopes of stopping a mass shooting?

You can get all the training you want on how to properly handle a handgun, how to accurately fire, etc., but it will not replace the training and expertise of a veteran police officer. Allowing teachers to effectively, act as police officers on a school campus full of minor children would be a potential nightmare in a situation like the one I described.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Peikko 1,575]

How rational is a 'mass murderer'? Are they going to just go away because people are going around carrying guns? Or, are you saying that they will simply shoot and wait to get shot at?

It just doesn't make sense, and in the meantime there are a bunch of 'oops' accidents. Fabulous.