Home Forums Hunting Firearms Legislation Discussing and Implementing Ideas for Protecting Our Schools

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 150 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: nahdogg

    I met with my school’s principal yesterday. And they already have all doors secured and a secured Atrium that prevents entrance from going farther into the building then allowed. She indicated they have regular run hide fight drills. I like the idea of a voluntary concealed carry in the school by teachers and or faculty that pass additional screening. But I think most teachers would be against it.

    Fantastic! These are steps in the right direction. I agree, many teachers / school faculty would be in opposition to mandatory firearm training, but in the end, they’re all government employees, so if it were mandated, they wouldn’t have a choice. Well, they would have the choice to take the training and stay, or not take the training and leave, I guess. Firearm training should be treated similar to CPR training, which is already mandatory for teachers in several states. https://schoolcpr.com/requirements/teachers/

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    No 3, school faculty are government employees. They would really have no choice in the matter. Insurance should logically be in favor of qualified school faculty carrying firearms, in lieu of the school murders of the past 1-2 decades.

    If you really think this then there’s really no sense continuing on with the conversation.

    Public school faculty / teachers are most certainly government employees. I’d like to see evidence that proves otherwise.

    Firearm training should be treated similar to CPR training, which is already mandatory for public school teachers in several states. https://schoolcpr.com/requirements/teachers/

    If you’re referring to my ‘insurance’ statement, I said “should logically be in favor of …”. This is purely my opinion. I’ve worked off and on in the insurance industry, and I know this isn’t how they function.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    The notion of better entry and exit security is feasible, as long as the public agrees that their taxes would have to be increased to accommodate improvements. The state is talking about a 1.5% allowable growth for public schools…that doesn’t go too far.

    Again, we are no longer talking about a public education budget. We are now talking about a national security budget, or at lease state and/or school district security budgets. One gets bread crumbs. The other gets the fat calf.

    llewellinsetterllewellinsetter
    Blocked
    Post count: 2514

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    No 3, school faculty are government employees. They would really have no choice in the matter. Insurance should logically be in favor of qualified school faculty carrying firearms, in lieu of the school murders of the past 1-2 decades.

    If you really think this then there’s really no sense continuing on with the conversation.

    Public school faculty / teachers are most certainly government employees. I’d like to see evidence that proves otherwise.

    Firearm training should be treated similar to CPR training, which is already mandatory for public school teachers in several states. https://schoolcpr.com/requirements/teachers/

    If you’re referring to my ‘insurance’ statement, I said “should logically be in favor of …”. This is purely my opinion. I’ve worked off and on in the insurance industry, and I know this isn’t how they function.

    So the “government” can mandate anything they want based on them being the “government”? I can see it now, hundreds of thousands of teachers no longer teach because the “government” has mandated firearms and self defense training courses. C’mon man, let’s use a little logic here, you’re starting to sound like a progressive.

    Sarcasm entails a few things: one of them is intellect, another one is a sense of humor, and a third - not taking things too personally.

    AvatarTeamAsgrow
    Participant
    Post count: 9151

    This is where I will leave my opinion, take it or leave it.

    Schools do not have security budgets.

    A teacher is paid by the government, yes. Forcing them to mandatory firearms training would cause an uproar. Teachers are not legally allowed to strike in the state of Iowa, but if enough felt the urge to walk away from their assignments they might, or at the encouragement of the Teachers Association. Then the Board of Educational Examiners would be forced to investigate each case as to whether or not that person should maintain their teaching license, this would take years to sort out. And in the mean time while the BOEE is trying to figure out who’s license to suspend or revoke schools would be forced to hire new teachers, who would also need a teaching license issued by the BOEE. Remember they are off investigating the cases of teachers who left, so there will be longer delay issuing licenses (currently it is 4-6 weeks). This would be a nightmare for school districts to attempt to implement mandatory firearms training.

    I would be all for local/state building codes for schools being updated to require certain entrance security measures (cameras, buzz in locks etc) Give school districts a time frame, mandate that local option sales tax be used for security measures to reach code before other building improvements are made. Does this happen over night? No but eventually it would lead to an increase in security without having to raise taxes, just using what is available first to meet new building codes.

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602

    I appreciate everyone’s input. I know it seems like these school shootings are happening with a lot of frequency. But as I stated before children are more likely to be in an accident on the bus than in a school shooting….and buses don’t have seat belts and sometimes they barely have a qualified driver. That should tell you right there the value placed on safety. We have always gambled with the safety of our children.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    No 3, school faculty are government employees. They would really have no choice in the matter. Insurance should logically be in favor of qualified school faculty carrying firearms, in lieu of the school murders of the past 1-2 decades.

    If you really think this then there’s really no sense continuing on with the conversation.

    Public school faculty / teachers are most certainly government employees. I’d like to see evidence that proves otherwise.

    Firearm training should be treated similar to CPR training, which is already mandatory for public school teachers in several states. https://schoolcpr.com/requirements/teachers/

    If you’re referring to my ‘insurance’ statement, I said “should logically be in favor of …”. This is purely my opinion. I’ve worked off and on in the insurance industry, and I know this isn’t how they function.

    So the “government” can mandate anything they want based on them being the “government”? I can see it now, hundreds of thousands of teachers no longer teach because the “government” has mandated firearms and self defense training courses. C’mon man, let’s use a little logic here, you’re starting to sound like a progressive.

    No. That’s not at all what I’m saying. However, if legislation were passed, public school teachers / faculty would have no choice but to comply or leave. In lieu of mass school murders carried out within the past 1-2 decades, this has become a very real threat that could happen at any public school, at any time. With this said, how would mandatory self defense and/or mandatory firearm training be considered any different than mandatory CPR training, (already in place)? Teachers / faculty wouldn’t be required to carry a firearm, use a firearm if / when they found themselves within a violent incident, or even do anything above and beyond running an hiding if / when a violent incident occurred. It would simply be mandatory training, similar to any/all other mandatory training already in place. C’mon man, sounds pretty logical to me, and I’m far from a progressive, thank you.

    llewellinsetterllewellinsetter
    Blocked
    Post count: 2514

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    With this said, how would mandatory self defense and/or mandatory firearm training be considered any different than mandatory CPR training, (already in place)? Teachers / faculty wouldn’t be required to carry a firearm, use a firearm if / when they found themselves within a violent incident, or even do anything above and beyond running an hiding if / when a violent incident occurred. It would simply be mandatory training, similar to any/all other mandatory training already in place. C’mon man, sounds pretty logical to me, and I’m far from a progressive, thank you.

    For starters, one is designed to save a live and the other to potentially take a life. In all honesty, I can’t believe this is even being discussed as logical.

    Sarcasm entails a few things: one of them is intellect, another one is a sense of humor, and a third - not taking things too personally.

    Avatariowavf
    Participant
    Post count: 3575

    Some good points made. I’m not sure where we’d get the 5 National Guardsmen for our buildings? Our door already have key fobs and are locked, but several doors are unlocked in the morning for 45 minutes for students to enter the building and main entrances unlocked for 30 minutes when schools out. You do have to be buzzed in after the doors are locked and the main entrances have a camera which the person can view before letting them in. Alarms on other exit doors might become a game and who would the alarms notify if tripped? Although our staff went through ALICE training and we even did a mock incident at our High School, some in the other buildings were pretty reluctant when it came to police even having the fake guns they use for training around them. You could try and make it mandatory, but the teacher’s union could be an obstacle. I’m not against teachers or staff carrying concealed if they pass the proper training and have maybe a 4 hour refresher a couple times a year, but I would try and keep those anonymous as to whom might be carrying.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    This is where I will leave my opinion, take it or leave it.

    Schools do not have security budgets.

    A teacher is paid by the government, yes. Forcing them to mandatory firearms training would cause an uproar. Teachers are not legally allowed to strike in the state of Iowa, but if enough felt the urge to walk away from their assignments they might, or at the encouragement of the Teachers Association. Then the Board of Educational Examiners would be forced to investigate each case as to whether or not that person should maintain their teaching license, this would take years to sort out. And in the mean time while the BOEE is trying to figure out who’s license to suspend or revoke schools would be forced to hire new teachers, who would also need a teaching license issued by the BOEE. Remember they are off investigating the cases of teachers who left, so there will be longer delay issuing licenses (currently it is 4-6 weeks). This would be a nightmare for school districts to attempt to implement mandatory firearms training.

    I would be all for local/state building codes for schools being updated to require certain entrance security measures (cameras, buzz in locks etc) Give school districts a time frame, mandate that local option sales tax be used for security measures to reach code before other building improvements are made. Does this happen over night? No but eventually it would lead to an increase in security without having to raise taxes, just using what is available first to meet new building codes.

    I appreciate your input TeamAsgrow. State and Federal governments do have security budgets, and they are responsible for managing our public schools. Not only that, but school budgets can be increased at any time. Put enough pressure in the right places and budgets will increase to meet the needs/demands of the constituents. I’d say the mortal protection of our children is a better cause than any for demanding an increase in school budgets. Wouldn’t you?

    My question to you is, why is CPR training promoted / recommended, and even mandatory in many states and schools? Answer, because there is a very real threat of something occurring that would require a teacher/faculty member to use it.

    School shootings are also a very real threat today. Knowing how to use a firearm, (better yet, also possessing a firearm), are the ways I know of to best protect yourself and others if/when you find yourself cornered, in a life or death situation. Again though, we are ONLY talking about mandatory ‘Training’, not mandatory carrying of firearms or mandatory use of firearms within a violent situation. That would be up to the discretion of the teacher/faculty member if/when they found themselves in a life or death situation.

    Will updating our school buildings for better security cost additional money? Of course it will, but again, what’s the value of a human life? There’s no better reason for demanding increased budgets than for the protection of our children.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: fowl_attitude

    I appreciate everyone’s input. I know it seems like these school shootings are happening with a lot of frequency. But as I stated before children are more likely to be in an accident on the bus than in a school shooting….and buses don’t have seat belts and sometimes they barely have a qualified driver. That should tell you right there the value placed on safety. We have always gambled with the safety of our children.

    I agree fowl_attitude, but masses of people don’t attempt to chip away at or overturn the 2nd Amendment because of a bus accident. Seat-belts should be required in school buses. Bus drivers should pass some sort of qualification or examination. Unfortunately, you’re right, we have always gambled with the safety of our children.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    With this said, how would mandatory self defense and/or mandatory firearm training be considered any different than mandatory CPR training, (already in place)? Teachers / faculty wouldn’t be required to carry a firearm, use a firearm if / when they found themselves within a violent incident, or even do anything above and beyond running an hiding if / when a violent incident occurred. It would simply be mandatory training, similar to any/all other mandatory training already in place. C’mon man, sounds pretty logical to me, and I’m far from a progressive, thank you.

    For starters, one is designed to save a live and the other to potentially take a life. In all honesty, I can’t believe this is even being discussed as logical.

    llewellinsetter, if you persist in dissing on me for not being ‘logical’, I can continue taking you to task with more ‘logical’ debate. I’d prefer not to do it on this topic beyond this response though, so please feel free to PM me and we can go from there.

    CPR and firearms are both ‘designed’ to save lives. (Firearms can also be used for hunting and recreation however, where CPR cannot.)

    It is possible to kill someone by performing CPR, (e.g. chest compressions are extremely dangerous, forcing lodged obstructions further in, etc.).

    When used properly in self defense, a firearm is used to save lives. If you kill the the criminal in the process, you are stopping them from committing murder. Murder is much different than killing in self defense.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: iowavf

    Some good points made. I’m not sure where we’d get the 5 National Guardsmen for our buildings? Our door already have key fobs and are locked, but several doors are unlocked in the morning for 45 minutes for students to enter the building and main entrances unlocked for 30 minutes when schools out. You do have to be buzzed in after the doors are locked and the main entrances have a camera which the person can view before letting them in. Alarms on other exit doors might become a game and who would the alarms notify if tripped? Although our staff went through ALICE training and we even did a mock incident at our High School, some in the other buildings were pretty reluctant when it came to police even having the fake guns they use for training around them. You could try and make it mandatory, but the teacher’s union could be an obstacle. I’m not against teachers or staff carrying concealed if they pass the proper training and have maybe a 4 hour refresher a couple times a year, but I would try and keep those anonymous as to whom might be carrying.

    I’m not sure where you got the number of 5 National Guardsmen/women iowavf. If the school is small enough, one or two should be adequate. Larger schools would probably require more, but I don’t know the size of your specific school. This would of course be hammered out in the planning phase, after the idea was at least being taken into consideration.

    Your school already has some security devices and procedures in place. That’s great! I would imagine it would take less than others to implement these additional items, if needed.

    I can almost guarantee the teacher’s union would be an obstacle on making self defense and firearm training mandatory. I stress the importance of selling this to them as required training similar to CPR training. It’s learning proper skill sets to best be equipped to respond to a situation if one were to occur. School shootings / murders are a very real threat, so I don’t see how the teacher’s union could logically be opposed to this. It’s ONLY training, and they are responsible for the safety of our children.

    llewellinsetterllewellinsetter
    Blocked
    Post count: 2514

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    With this said, how would mandatory self defense and/or mandatory firearm training be considered any different than mandatory CPR training, (already in place)? Teachers / faculty wouldn’t be required to carry a firearm, use a firearm if / when they found themselves within a violent incident, or even do anything above and beyond running an hiding if / when a violent incident occurred. It would simply be mandatory training, similar to any/all other mandatory training already in place. C’mon man, sounds pretty logical to me, and I’m far from a progressive, thank you.

    For starters, one is designed to save a live and the other to potentially take a life. In all honesty, I can’t believe this is even being discussed as logical.

    llewellinsetter, if you persist in dissing on me for not being ‘logical’, I can continue taking you to task with more ‘logical’ debate. I’d prefer not to do it on this topic beyond this response though, so please feel free to PM me and we can go from there.

    CPR and firearms are both ‘designed’ to save lives. (Firearms can also be used for hunting and recreation however, where CPR cannot.)

    It is possible to kill someone by performing CPR, (e.g. chest compressions are extremely dangerous, forcing lodged obstructions further in, etc.).

    When used properly in self defense, a firearm is used to save lives. If you kill the the criminal in the process, you are stopping them from committing murder. Murder is much different than killing in self defense.

    You’re right…

    It’s logical to force teachers to take a mandated firearms course and also within the Constitution to do so.
    It’s logical to place armed soldiers at entrances to schools, BTW, our high school has about fifteen different entrances and exists, and expect it to be budget and Constitutionally friendly.
    It’s logical to get insurers to side with arming teachers as a cost savings.
    It’s logical to compare CPR with firearms training.
    It’s logical to compare a school shooting to a National Security issue.

    I understand your passion on the issue and maybe if everyone in America had the same mindset as you it might be feasible but that’s not reality. Take a step back, slow down and analyze each of these solutions and see how they fit into a society governed by laws and individual rights. There’s not a simple fix, and quite frankly most of these suggestions would create more problems for the group than would be solutions. Sorry you don’t like the argument but what’s the sense of posting the question if all you want is agreeable answers?

    Sarcasm entails a few things: one of them is intellect, another one is a sense of humor, and a third - not taking things too personally.

    Avatariowavf
    Participant
    Post count: 3575

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: iowavf

    Some good points made. I’m not sure where we’d get the 5 National Guardsmen for our buildings? Our door already have key fobs and are locked, but several doors are unlocked in the morning for 45 minutes for students to enter the building and main entrances unlocked for 30 minutes when schools out. You do have to be buzzed in after the doors are locked and the main entrances have a camera which the person can view before letting them in. Alarms on other exit doors might become a game and who would the alarms notify if tripped? Although our staff went through ALICE training and we even did a mock incident at our High School, some in the other buildings were pretty reluctant when it came to police even having the fake guns they use for training around them. You could try and make it mandatory, but the teacher’s union could be an obstacle. I’m not against teachers or staff carrying concealed if they pass the proper training and have maybe a 4 hour refresher a couple times a year, but I would try and keep those anonymous as to whom might be carrying.

    I’m not sure where you got the number of 5 National Guardsmen/women iowavf. If the school is small enough, one or two should be adequate. Larger schools would probably require more, but I don’t know the size of your specific school. This would of course be hammered out in the planning phase, after the idea was at least being taken into consideration.

    Your school already has some security devices and procedures in place. That’s great! I would imagine it would take less than others to implement these additional items, if needed.

    I can almost guarantee the teacher’s union would be an obstacle on making self defense and firearm training mandatory. I stress the importance of selling this to them as required training similar to CPR training. It’s learning proper skill sets to best be equipped to respond to a situation if one were to occur. School shootings / murders are a very real threat, so I don’t see how the teacher’s union could logically be opposed to this. It’s ONLY training, and they are responsible for the safety of our children.

    Pretty easy we have five main buildings with students in them, each building has it’s own main entrance and are several blocks from each other. We’re like a lot of other schools and aren’t able to have K – 12 in one building. I think it depends on what skill level and depth of mandatory firearm training you’re talking about? I’m just sure what the mandatory firearm training would consist of unless they had to handle a gun which there lies the issue for many. You’re not going to make them carry a gun or loose their job if they don’t, nor would I want any of them to have one! I think you’re comparing CRP training as the same as mandatory firearm training is like comparing apples to oranges, just not the same. We have fire training and drills, yet I haven’t seen any teachers or staff be made to come out to our fire department for fire training? Why is that?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 150 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.